digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at chicagotribune.com

Wheaton College professor's divorce costs him his job

chicagotribune.com — Should a popular English prof lose his job, just because he got a divorce?!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -11/+86Another example of knowing what the "Rules of the Road" are for an employer. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else.

    Eventually, when an employer doesn't have any employees because no one likes their rules, they will change them.
    • PHiZ187, on 04/30/2008, -14/+31Or perhaps they will change them when they are embarrassed with negative publicity for a stupid stupid policy.
      • jgtg32a, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Doubtfull they'll go for the moral high ground, with some weird logic
      • Midtowner, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6It's a private college. If they want to have ridiculous standards for their employees, that's their right.
    • ajb2015, on 04/30/2008, -20/+3I can't even believe it is legal.
      • Akaji, on 04/30/2008, -3/+16Private college. If it were a public college, I'm fairly certain it would be illegal; however, private colleges are more or less able to set their own rules (which is certainly how it should be, since private colleges are not funded by the state).
        • lotu, on 04/30/2008, -7/+9Could they fire somebody because they married an black person then?
          • Akaji, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3No, because that directly violates federal anti-discrimination laws. Were 'divorce' (or, perhaps, 'marital status') ever to be added to the anti-discrimination clause, then yes, what happened to the Wheaton professor would be illegal. However, considering that the government itself discriminates based on 'marital status', I don't see that happening any time soon.
        • sexybobo, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3As long as you arn't funded by the government you can usually set most rules no matter how stupid so long as they are in the contract. Worked at an amusement park and had to sign a contract saying it was ok for them to fire me an terminate the contract for an reason they wanted to this would fall under that any reason clause. I don't believe it is illegal even if it is publicly funded but they can loose their funding.
          • morpheus69, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4It's not as simple as that. Antidiscrimination laws apply to all employers, public and private. Some exceptions are made in cases where it can be argued that the nature of the institution or job justifies the discrimination. For example, a man who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him as a waitress lost his case. In this case the College argues that teaching "Christian morals" is an essential part of the job, so employees must live up to those morals. Even if he sued the college, he'd probably lose.
        • cawpin, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3"Private college."
          Being a private college doesn't let you violate somebody else's rights.
          • gordeaoux, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6I grew up right next to - literally right next to - wheaton college. Up until a few years ago, it was against the rule for anyone that worked there or went to school there to dance or drink. If anyone was found out, they were expelled or fired. It was part of a covenant they had to sign when they started at the college. The matter of the covenant was actually covered in the areas high school political science classes as an example of a contract that limits personal freedoms and is legal.

            It's also why I moved far, far away as soon as I could.
          • Akaji, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2@gordeaoux
            You make it sound like it's a terrible thing, but it's an opt-in contract. Basically, "if you don't like it, don't do it." Some people like having an atmosphere where certain temptations have been, at the very least, hidden from the public eye.
          • Midtowner, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3You don't have a "right" to be employed by any private employer. If that employer has ridiculous standards, that's their right.
          • gordeaoux, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0@Akaji, I guess from my personal perspective, it did suck, as most of my high school friends went there, and subsequently stayed in every night. But from a neutral standpoint, I don't think contracts signed willingly are terrible. If people want to give up their freedom, that's their, uh, freedom.
    • Mith, on 04/30/2008, -2/+30I would agree. The article makes it clear that Professor Gramm knew the rules, and is not angry or bitter about the situation. Wheaton is fully within their rights to let him go, and they seem to be very supportive (allowing him to stay one year while looking for a job). I would say the situation was handled well by both parties, even when the situation sucks.

      • ricree, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7"Wheaton is fully within their rights to let him go"
        I agree with that, but we are also fully within our rights to criticize them for it.
    • troye, on 04/30/2008, -13/+5Personally, I thought it was a joke when I read it.

      ***** like this still goes on in 2008. Religious universities/colleges FTL.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6Why so disgusted?

        There are probably more religion-oriented or based schools, universites, and colleges than any other type in the US.

        Besides...*you* have a choice as to whether to attend one, or be employed by one.

        In either case, as a student or employee, you have to play by their rules.
    • deanypop, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Especially true when your employer is GOD.

    • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2A business cannot hire based on marriage status (nor can they even inquire about it). I don't know how it applied to private universities.
  • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -6/+29Divorce bites in so many ways. Mine is going through on May 9th. When some choices are made for you it sort of sucks...real real bad. Losing a job and getting divorced? That freaking sucks.
    • digitallysick, on 04/30/2008, -1/+17I am border line divorced myself , it is very hard to deal with, i wish you luck
      • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4If you can save the marriage it is worth it. For crushing and ripping at your very soul is a sucky thing. Unless she is a tramp then it is best to let go.
    • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -0/+13I'm sorry for your divorce. I wish you the best of luck and hope for the best.
    • troye, on 04/30/2008, -17/+8Burn the bitch at the stake.

      Let this be a lesson to all you happily want to marry men out there. DO NOT GET MARRIED!!!
      • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5Um...Why kill someone when they can screw up thier life for the rest of thier life? It is like self torture. God always gets people back...in a teaching kind of way. Hey I am getting divorced and still want to find a wife. You know why? It is great to be married when the person you are married to isnt going to ditch you and is good to you. Then you can have wonderful little babies that you get to see grow up and stuff. Family is a great thing to have...the kind you get not the one you came from.
      • cawpin, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2How about you go back in your hole. Thanks.
      • troye, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2I can see people have their humor-detector turn off. Oh well.
    • Akaji, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7The divorce rate amongst Americans is around or above 50%, yet divorce is something that is extremely difficult to go through (and is generally very much frowned upon by society). Given the societal pressure to stay married, and the fact that 50% of marriages still end in divorce, what percent of people in marriage do you think are actually happy? My guess would be about 25% (completely rough estimate, but you get the point).

      Moral of the story? Either don't get married, or don't get married for 'love' - get married because you get along with the other person, and you know you would get along with them for the rest of your lives (think about how long that is for a moment...).
      • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3The problem is that people are lazy and wont work on their marriage. It does take work. Nobody can be completely compatible. You have to work together as a team and not be stupid. In my case she was stupid and screwed me over. Next time will not be like that. I will make sure to know the next one much much better first. Good way to test is to not have sex with them till marriage. This sounds dumb but it will show if they can hold out for the person they truly love and wont cheat for attention or sexual gratification during the marriage. Not foolproof but one heck of a test.
        • apetrie, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Physical compatibility is important though, and being intimate with someone teaches you a lot about them. It also creates a different level of comfort. I'm afraid your method would test some things well while leaving other crucial things completely up to chance.
          • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I do understand that too. It is very difficult to figure out what you feel is more important however. I have been strugling with these concepts and have not decided what I feel is best for me. However the bible gives one way. At points though it says that if you have sex with a virgin girl that you are to take her as your wife. So it really depends on what your up for. Thank you for your point of view and constructive thoughts. I hope you didn't digg me down for I am not perfect or foolproof. I was merely giving my current thoughts on it.
          • apetrie, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2for the record, I didn't digg you down xp
      • apetrie, on 04/30/2008, -0/+7Love is important in a marriage, at least for me it would be, but not enough. To truly work, a long term partnership like that has to work on both the emotional and practical levels. Most people seem to mistakenly think one or the other will do.
        • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3They must be able to be an adult on their own to a sufficient level. Without them being an adult to the level at what you need them to be your love will not be enough as you say. Agreed.

          PS. People pick their mates for odd reasons and in weird ways. We humans are freaking crazy eh?
      • jgtg32a, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Love is very important but most people don't know what love is, I know I don't
        • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You wont know it till you get it. Sounds stupid but it is true.
      • diulei, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1What I've noticed among friends and family, is that too many people are feeling pressure in their late 20's or early 30's and getting married. Instead of taking time to work on things with someone they can spend their life with, they rush into it because they feel like "it's time to get married". Which to me is one of the worst possible reasons to get married. I get the impression that women feel more antsy towards their late 20s than the men also.
        • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Ansty for what? I don't know many 20 yr old girls that want married. I want a family and it's a pain to find a decent girl to be with for having a family that I can stay with.
    • gryphon50, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0let me give you some advice. Look long and hard at the other person's parents. You might think that they magically escaped the influence of their parents but it can very well manifest over time in unpleasant ways.
  • thedarkrabbit, on 04/30/2008, -40/+34We should only teach strong, conservative, family oriented, Christian values in our schools....


    Man, I couldn't even keep a straight face typing that... Why fire a man for this *****?
    • WinnemuccaMac, on 04/30/2008, -7/+33Because it's Bible college, you twit. RTFA.
      • Ryansmellsfarts, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4That acronym made me laugh
        • jgtg32a, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2You do know that it's older than the internet itself, well RTFM is at least.
      • troye, on 04/30/2008, -11/+7Bible and college, isn't that like an oxymoron or something.
        • Regbooker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4No if you have into consideration that colleges in post-roman world started as monasteries.
    • uhhNo, on 04/30/2008, -9/+11lol Bible college...
    • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3In this day in age the sexual thing is not the only reason...abandonment can happen when still living together. Or it can happen suddenly. Heck she could just be hanging around because she doesn't want to have no place to live yet. Not sure what is up but sometimes the second mate has no choice in the decision and he sure didn't want to tell them what was going on. That is why they wanted to fire him. It is cause they have no idea what it was for and he feels it isn't their business.
    • stilesja, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5Seriously if that tweed jacket with tan leather elbow pads doesn't say strong, conservative, family oriented christian, then what does? I wore that same outfit last halloween - I was supposed to be an English Professor: nailed it.
  • pimpnamedjino, on 04/30/2008, -11/+6what kind of question is that? of course not.
  • smashingmonkey, on 04/30/2008, -25/+54Sounds like they did him a favor - why would you want to work amongst fundamentalists?
    • diggSJaustin, on 04/30/2008, -9/+19Wheaton is an evangelical college, not a fundamentalist one. I know most people think it's all the same, but there is a difference, and it is significant. (Think Billy Graham rather than Jerry Falwell, if that is at all helpful.)

      That being clarified, yeah, Wheaton is dropping the ball on this one, in my opinion.
      • Lukesed, on 04/30/2008, -6/+8They fired a guy for getting divorced and you're saying they aren't fundamentalist? Any reasonable denomination allows people to get divorced/annulled.
        • BOFH2, on 04/30/2008, -4/+11If he had talked with them they may have let it go. He made the choice not to.
          "Many theological conservatives say the New Testament permits divorce only in cases of adultery or desertion. Wheaton requires faculty and staff to sign a faith statement and adhere to standards of conduct in areas including marriage, said Provost Stan Jones."
        • NJank, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2... and that's only based on a rather liberal KJV'ish translation of the greek pornea. literally, it means prostitution, and/or incest. modern versions esp. around the KJV time relaxed that just a bit to ease up the whole divorce restriction thing, calling pornea 'fornication' or sometimes unfaithfulness.
      • diggSJaustin, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6No, I'm saying that the term "fundamentalist" means something specific and that Wheaton is not within that stream of faith as it developed historically. Not all conservative Christians/groups are fundamentalist, though all Christian fundamentalists are very conservative.
        • shermanthetank, on 04/30/2008, -4/+0You're right. So says me and my two degrees in religion. Any self-respecting fundamentalist or evangelical ministers will tell you as much too.

          Seriously, people. Read up on fundamentalism and evangelicalism before you spout off. Just knowing who Jerry Falwell is doesn't make you an expert. This is like not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia.
      • lotu, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7FTA: Wheaton officials said Catholicism contradicted the college's beliefs by setting up a spiritual authority in addition to Scripture.
        I say they are fundamentalists, maybe not the really bad fundamentalists but fundamentalists none the less.
        • shermanthetank, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2No, that's just Protestantism.
        • Harabeck, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Yes and no. It could just mean they dont like the fact that the Catholic church makes crap up. (Having to pay to get family out of purgatory, or even the very concept of purgatory for instance.)
      • smashingmonkey, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4I see your point, diggSJaustin, and technically I did misuse that word, but it makes a point - fundamentalism has taken on something of an unofficial connotation whereby religious people impose their morality on others. Whether or not that connotation is fair, unless this guy's divorce was affecting his ability to teach English, they are imposing their morality on him and that kind of behavior blurs the line between evangelical and fundamentalist.
        • gobber, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1One problem. He voluntarily signed the statement of faith. He knew the rules going in and accepts the college's decision. They even offered to keep him on one extra year to find other employment. The college is being completely fair to him
        • diggSJaustin, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Fair enough (if you're still reading, heh). We agree to an extent. All the same, the prof is an evangelical, too—so the Wheaton folks would probably say they're imposing his own morality on him when he is unwilling to impose it on himself. (Not that I agree with them.)
    • okto, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Professionalism?
    • CalvinLawson, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7Actually, I would clasify Weaton College as "fundamentalist". They believe in innerant scripture; a hallmark of fundamentalism.
      • gobber, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Uh, there is more to fundamentalism than just the inerrancy of Scripture.
        • deanypop, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Only to you religious wackos. To normal folks, it's all one sinking ship.
      • anoriginalname, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1if you knew history and the history of literature you would know that the New Testament is the MOST backed up ancient writing there is. All others pale in comparison (there are something like 2400 copies of the New Testament from within the time of the writers... NOTHING else even comes close, the next best, and number 2, is Dante's Divine Comedy with a few hundred -- i think 800 -- dated 100 years after the originals. In short THEY are the standard).

        Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

        If the College and those they ask to teach, teach the value of scripture, yet then ignore it... that would make them hypocrites instead of "fundamentalists". They were upfront, fair, even gracious to the prof. He chose to leave rather than explain his situation to them, even refusing the extra time the college gave him to look for work.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Well, for one it pays the bills.
  • beloitpiper, on 04/30/2008, -22/+12Hooray religion.
  • footodors, on 04/30/2008, -8/+25rules is rules!
    • troye, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2But, you don't have to comply or conform if you don't want to.
      • sexybobo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4You do if you wish to remain employed there
  • leetdood, on 04/30/2008, -12/+106He signed an agreement with said college about divorces and his faith, and his divorce didn't comply with said agreement when he declined to explain the circumstances of the divorce. Nobody forced him to sign this agreement at gunpoint. Hell, the college offered him a year to find another job.
    • p51d007, on 04/30/2008, -7/+29you are stating facts........something always left out of a debate....
      I agree! If you know the rules going in, don't bitch when you break the rules and get fired.
      • diggSJaustin, on 04/30/2008, -2/+12Right. And to be fair, he's not exactly bitching.
      • kurtwinter, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6So he just needs to continue in a loveless marriage and ruin his life so some ***** moralistic prick can get a hard on? ***** these Jesus assholes. Jesus hung out with the scum of the earth, and didn't judge people the way these loathsome dickheads do. Burn in hell ***** administrators.
        • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1You obviously have no idea what Jesus did nor understanding about the fact that Christians are supposed to judge one another; they aren't to judge non-believers.
    • negativenancy, on 04/30/2008, -13/+8stfu you factwhore!

      Go back to where you spawned.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2Calm down...

        You've been reported.
    • PHiZ187, on 04/30/2008, -13/+10The school still deserves condemnation for such a stupid policy. Moreso because it now appears that it was premeditatedly stupid.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -7/+12It is an evangelical, Christian college and , as far as I know, still have the right to establish personnel policies in accordance with their Biblical beliefs. While it may seem "stupid" to a non-believer or nominal Christian, those who understand the tenets of Christianity comprehend why these policies exist. Since I've also been employed by a similar Christian university, the reason this policy exists is simple and Biblical. There are very few reasons that God has allowed for divorce; since part of the mission of most Christian institutions is to teach Christian morality and ethics, they also want their faculty and staff to role model this behavior as well. It is not "do as I, not as I do". It is live out your Christianity not just on Sundays and when you think no one is watching, but live it out each and every day by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't expect that you will understand this; but hopefully you will understand why Christians do not regard it as "stupid".
        • ajwinder, on 04/30/2008, -9/+5They have the right to establish personnel policies, however, what is right under the law isn't what's right under God, I mean, you guys do believe this after all. You all are lost if you think the message Jesus was trying to bring was to kick out people who had been divorced. And yes, that is after all the saddest part of the story. His wife divorced him, not an act which he could control, and your Christian morality tells you he deserves to be jobless. Yeah, I'm the one with a problem understanding, and you're the one who is righteous. To come out of reading the bible with the understanding you took from it takes nothing short of a serious reading comprehension problem.

          Oh, and as for the reason these policies exist, well, its pretty obvious that you grow a religion into a sizeable force by encouraging your membership to ***** (no contraceptives) and to remain in marriages (no divorce). Oh wait, you're one of those ***** crazies who believe the Bible is transcribed literally from the word of God. I don't know why I even tried to go down that path.

          Now I suddenly remember why reading actual works of Philosophy is so much more morally and ethically satisfying.
          • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Strengthen your argument rather than name-call. You obviously are clueless regarding Biblical understanding. It's not a matter of "kicking someone out" or rejecting them because they chose to divorce. And it is disingenuous of you AND judgmental of you to claim that anyone thinks he "deserves to be jobless".; it's an ad hominem attack attempting to depict Christians as lacking compassion and just plain idiots. No one on this planet gets what they "deserve"; life isn't fair. If one desires to work in full-time Christian vocation, one is expected to adhere to the teachings of the Bible - even when it is painful and inconvenient - it was certainly painful for Christ to do what He did and Christians aren't exempt from suffering. The marriage committment is a matter of honoring God - at least if one is a Christian when they exchange vows. Marriage is a sacred covenant; something you fail to comprehend. As such, it is part of the personnel policy of most evangelical Christian organizations. Exceptions are made on a case by case basis providing that there was a Biblical basis for the divorce - but you are probably unfamiliar with what those might be as well.
          • Nannybell, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2A: In addition to what these3remain said, you possibly do not know that in the Bible, the church is told not to tolerate a reprobate in its midst. The church is given instructions (some of it by Christ Himself in the Gospels) on what to do about a fellow Christian who persists in sin and also those who pervert the truth of the gospel. In the first instance, we are to go to them privately and talk to them about the matter. If that doesn't work, we are to take others with us and talk to them again. If that doesn't work, we are to bring the matter up before the entire church. If that doesn't work, we are to withdraw fellowship from the person for the purpose of protecting the church from that person's influences and also to hopefully cause the person to repent. In the case of persons who pervert the gospel and teach things that aren't in accordance with Scripture, we are to expose their false doctrine and avoid them like the plague, literally (it says) not even letting them come into our home.

            The problem with the unbelieving world is it often has a superficial knowledge of Scripture, such as in the concept of *not judging* others.
          • avaugha4, on 05/01/2008, -0/+5@ nannybell: that is what lead to the inquisition.
          • Nannybell, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1That *what* lead to the inquisition? No one is talking about burning people at the stake. These are private institutions to which people voluntarily attach themselves. However, if you disagree, then it is Jesus you disagree with, because this is what He had to say about it:

            "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18) (They would have refused to associate with a pagan or a tax collector.)

            This specifically regards someone who has sinned against you yourself, but is applicable to someone sinning in general, because he is sinning against the church and God by not being in subjection to God.

          • Nannybell, on 05/02/2008, -2/+0But beyond that, this country is giving up personal liberty in the name of a false idea of *fairness* which will progress to the point that we have no liberty at all. This college has every right to determine its personnel policies. He knew the rules going in. He could have gone elsewhere. This is more like sour grapes on his part to me. Those of you who think otherwise ought to establish your own socialistic nation somewhere and leave this one alone.
          • lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1So, this college has the right to ask people to surrender their personal liberties, to work there, and this is because a college has institutional liberty that triumphs constitutional personal liberty?

            Now, yes, I think he signed the contract, and he should be held to it. I also agree the same applies to a student in an art class that paints a religious concept that is against rules that he signed to take the class. But I do think the requirements in both documents are wrong.

            http://digg.com/world_news/anti-christian_antics_i ...
          • Nannybell, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0That link is broken.

            A private institution has the right to ask anything it wishes of its employees as long as it's not breaking a law such as holding them hostage, physically harming them or otherwise being weird like that. And they have the right to not work there too. When we voluntarily enter a contract, we automatically relinquish certain personal liberties as required in the contract. Else, don't sign on the dotted line. If you want the liberty to follow whatever morals you desire, don't sign on with a private organization that requires otherwise.
          • eir574, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2@lydecker,

            Religious institutions are exempted from certain anti-discrimination laws that might otherwise make some of their actions unlawful.

            But, Nannybell's examples of the types of things private institutions can't do only describe extreme situations. Businesses also can't discriminate against people for certain things, like whether or not they have children (or how many they have), what religion they are (unless they're a religious organization), etc. There are many things businesses can do in most states that seem absurd, but so long as they're not specifically covered by anti-discrimination laws, they're legit. A French scientist just joined my lab a couple of weeks ago, and we were trying to explain that concept to him. Fun. :)
        • PHiZ187, on 04/30/2008, -7/+2And the FLDS cult believed that it is okay to impregnate young girls.
          I get to call that stupid and immoral, and I am not required to "understand it" because it is "what they believe."
    • kurtwinter, on 04/30/2008, -4/+7You can't sign a contract that specifies conditions to be used to evaluate your job-worthiness that of a personal nature. This is ***** ***** and the college is fascist.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1"You can't sign a contract that specifies conditions to be used to evaluate your job-worthiness that of a personal nature." Oh, yes you can - at least if you want to work at an evangelical Christian organization. It is entirely voluntary, too. The college is perfectly within its rights to have specific personnel policies and procedures in order to insure that their mission is not compromised.
  • RSTaichi, on 04/30/2008, -3/+21Hm. Is the alternative the Henry VIII workaround to divorce?
    • PolymathicMan, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Lol, Act of Supremacy.
    • azimir, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5So I declare myself head of the church and immediately give myself a waver?

      Sounds good, what do I sign?
  • tmyprod, on 04/30/2008, -7/+1050% of marriages in this country fail. Do they really want to fire a guy who has probably spent more time at his job than at his marriage. Unless he did something sacrilegious to cause the marriage to fail or if his wife has a higher position or more tenure at the school, it would not make sense to get rid of him.
    • phrstbrn, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Half of marriages may fail, however that number is somewhat misleading. (I believe 50% is correct, but I'm not sure).

      It doesn't really tell the whole story, since only a small percentage of Americans actually get divorced. The majority of people who get divorced have many divorces over their lifetime, so one person might have 5 marriages and divorces (100% divorce rate). If you count the number of different people who get divorced, it might be something closer to 5-10%.

      But I still agree with everything you said.
  • RISwampyankee, on 04/30/2008, -20/+13To quote the old hymn
    And you'll know they are christians by their love, by their love,
    and you'll know they are christians by their love.
    Yeah. Right.
    • WinnemuccaMac, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8Somebody's got issues...
      • Neiby, on 04/30/2008, -6/+4Why? By pointing out that Christians eat their own? This is quite common. If you step out of line in the wrong crowd, they cut you off. It helps them maintain the appearance of godliness and superiority. It honestly does make them feel good to do this kind of stuff. It allows them to say, "See? We didn't *want* to fire him, but we stuck up for our principles!"

        They're blind to the damage they do in the name of righteousness. They simply don't see it and they don't care.
        • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -3/+5"They're blind to the damage they do in the name of righteousness. They simply don't see it and they don't care."
          While some Christians may fall into this category, it is untrue of most.
          " If you step out of line in the wrong crowd, they cut you off. It helps them maintain the appearance of godliness and superiority. It honestly does make them feel good to do this kind of stuff. It allows them to say, "See? We didn't *want* to fire him, but we stuck up for our principles!"
          Wow! Talk about a spirit of unforgiveness and bitterness! I don't know what your personal experience has been with "Christians" but you are absolutely wrong on all the spurious remarks you just made. I don't know what kind of grudge you are carrying against Christians, but it does not justify making fallacious and hateful remarks about them in general. It's just plain bigoted and intolerant.
      • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Strangely enough non-Christians don't see that non-Christians eat their own too. Guess what...more than Christians do. You want to know why? WE ARE ALL HUMAN AND WE ALL FAIL!!! It is by the action of trying and the actions of the person in general that makes them who they are...not the group they belong to. A group is just to show that you strive towards that area or thought process. Christians and non-Christians fail to see this most of the time.

        I am the same as you...
        HUMAN

        Humans fail time to time. We are not perfect. Those who state they are perfect are not perfect for there is only one who is perfect. Surely nobody alive today. Not even your mom or dad or grandma or w/e. We all fail so just try to realize not to blame all of a group for strange behavior.
  • benjie, on 04/30/2008, -8/+55Remember, people, this is a Christian school. They teach a certain set of standards, and a teacher who didn't follow them could easily be called a hypocrite. Just as a public school would fire a professor for stealing or cheating, they can fire him for breaking their rules.
    • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -8/+6"public school would fire a professor for stealing or cheating"
      Is something going over my head with your comparison?
      • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4I wish just like the up and down diggs are colored red and green, The question-mark was colored maybe yellow. Because everyone uses the up and down diggs, But very few answer questions.
        • lerker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Imagine that a professor wrote an academic paper in which he plagiarised someone else's work. In other fields, this may not be such a big deal but, in academia, authenticity of research is a very big deal. To uphold their standards, the institution that employs this professor would have grounds to ask for his resignation. Otherwise, he sets an example for the students that is not in keeping with the defined principles of the institution.
          • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Cant that happen in a public school and a Christian school?
          • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"in academia, authenticity of research is a very big deal" I found this at Wheaton is it something like this?
            http://www.wheaton.edu/chemistry/
          • lerker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"Cant that happen in a public school and a Christian school?"
            Yes it can, because educational institutions in general require their teaching staff to uphold a certain set of defined principles. This specific educational institution (Wheaton College) has an additional set of defined principles that its teaching staff agree to uphold.

            I'm not sure what you're asking with your second reply, sorry.
          • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"public school would fire a professor for stealing or cheating"
            "Is something going over my head with your comparison?"
            Have you ever read something so obvious that you think you're missing something? I did with this comment that's all.
      • lerker, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Apparently so. It made perfect sense to me.
      • benjie, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Don't worry, I answer. The answer is obviously yes.

        But seriously, what don't you understand? It's pretty straightforward. You break a rule that carries a consequence of firing, and you get fired. It doesn't matter what school you're at.
        • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You using the example "public school" and all the up diggs threw me off. Saying "any school", And i don't think twice about it. But that's just me.
          Thank You!
        • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling that a lot of diggers were up digging for others reasons, And it really went over their heads. I'm the only one who had the courage to ask that question.
    • anonymiau, on 04/30/2008, -18/+5So what? All Christians are hypocrites. They don't follow the bible literally any of them. They break commandments and rules all the ***** time. On top of that, they are too stupid to see how they are just mindless sheep being exploited by rich churches selling them bs to stop them from actually developing something remotely resembling critical thought, rationality and logic.

      And what's more, they kick their teachers out on the street for not living with the same person their entire life. (Cause god really cares who you live with. That's like gods main interest.) No wonder Christians are undereducated.
      • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5"No wonder Christians are undereducated"
        America's Best Colleges
        http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usne ...
      • dzw120, on 04/30/2008, -5/+12"All Christians are hypocrites." followed by "they are too stupid to... [develop] something remotely resembling critical thought, rationality and logic."

        Sweetly ironic. It doesn't matter what your religion is: Making broad generalizations on a topic you obviously don't know about reeks of ignorance. There are a lot of angles that atheists have taken in criticizing Christians, but calling them "hypocrites" isn't one that intelligent ones take, because, well, it's just factually incorrect.
        • anonymiau, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Really? So you actually do all the stuff the bible tells you to do? Cause in that case, you must be both a murderer and a wife beater...
          • dzw120, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0Old Testament vs. New Testament. Christians are not Jews.

            Also, Christians aren't expected to follow the bible, which is why they can't be hypocrites when they don't. Christians are expected to be "like Christ" as a reflection of their commitment to God, but everyday sinning is forgiven due to the cross.

            Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about a topic you obviously don't know about. Plenty of Christians look like retards when they try to argue about Haeckel's embryos when they know nothing about science; and plenty of atheists look no better when they go for the hypocrisy argument.
          • anonymiau, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2So the whole issue of this professor being sacked cause he was a "hypocrite" and "didn't follow the rules of the bible" when he divorced is bs and you agree. Very good. Cause how can this teacher be a hypocrite not following the bible, when no one else follows the bible either...
      • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4All Christians are hypocrites to a point as well as all non-Christians. We are all human even us Christians. I surely am not perfect but strive towards that goal. For not striving is to become apart of the rotting society. Still can have fun though. Jesus was a nice guy and didn't ever tell anyone not to have fun. He mainly wanted Christians to be disciples and teach not by words necessarily but by their lifestyle and actions within groups. Heck Jesus hung out with the lowest of the low and was the best example for love ever. This makes a huge impact on people...not the words of hate or descent. I fall in that pit at times but I wish to be kind to those who do not know love or kindness and show that by being evil and cruel. So on that note I leave you with this...You guys all rock and I am happy for your existence because it makes my life pretty entertaining and I enjoy life even when it sucks for I am still alive.

        We are all human. We all fail at times. ALL of us :)
        • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3"surely am not perfect but strive towards that goal"
          Your comment is right on in my book, But that goal is unobtainable. But I think anyone can still strive towards being perfect as long as they also have the humility to know it really cant be done.
          • xptoast, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Yup. You have to at least have a goal for otherwise you will not get anywhere close to where you actually want to be. Try for 150% so that you hit somewhere around 100% That is how they do schooling as well. They set huge standards so that you hit the desired area of learning. Or at least that is what I have found works out.
      • gadgetlust, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Not to argue theology with you anonymiau, because it's clear that probably wouldn't be a good idea, but are you sure you really want Christians keeping all the rules in the Bible? Stoning disobedient children to death? Killing rapists and their victims (if the deed was done in city limits, of course)? Tearing down houses to the ground because of mildew?

        Nobody, not even the fundiest of the fundies, keep all these rules -- because if they did, they'd be indistinguishable from those Moslems that they've been trying so hard to wipe off the face of the earth. Thou shalt not kill? Meh!

        Hmm... It seems we are in agreement about the hypocrite thing. Funny. Anyway, you're welcome to come to my church and try to set my congregation straight. You'll recognize me because I'll be the overeducated, underpaid guy wearing the white robe.
        • anonymiau, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2"are you sure you really want Christians keeping all the rules in the Bible? "

          If they mean it, yes, they should grow some balls and do it. Read the supposed word of god literally, dare to imagine god actually meant what god said, and execute god's command. If they don't mean it, and they don't do what god tells them to do in the bible, they should admit to how ***** silly they are accusing other people of being hypocrites and not following the "rules of the bible" when they divorce..
  • mal1964, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2It was really just 50% of his job, Bull all the part-time positions were filled.
  • consoneo, on 04/30/2008, -24/+13Well some other college will get this good professor. ***** those bible thumpers. If I offend you, on this one, I really don't care. That's ***** in this day and age.
    • patpl22391, on 04/30/2008, -6/+11Yes, your tolerance overwhelms us all. Thank you for contributing.
    • troye, on 04/30/2008, -5/+6Damn where did all these religious people come from and land here on Digg. I need to create a couple more Digg accounts so I can bury them into the fiery bowels of hell. Stupid bible thumpers.
  • notahippie76, on 04/30/2008, -19/+23I attended a basketball training camp at Wheaton when I was younger; it's a devoutly-religious school. At one point, the head counselor sat us all down and said that all the counselors had accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and that they expected us to do the same. Then we watched a film about the college athletes on United 93. The film implied they had single-handedly kicked all the terrorists in the balls and saved the president themselves. Anyway, I'm not surprised they're enforcing the widely-held sanctity-of-marriage value with their teaching staff. You can't reason with some people. If they want to press their values on to you, there's nothing you can do about it.
    • patpl22391, on 04/30/2008, -9/+17He chose to work there. I'm sure there are plenty of other colleges he could work at.
      • herecomes, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah, totally agree. If he's a real prof, why would he wast his time trying to teach retards at some fundamentalist anti-education institution?
    • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -6/+9It's not a matter of "pressing their values" on this instructor. He knew the standards when he was first hired. Just because he changed , doesn't mean the entire institution needs to accommodate him.
    • troye, on 04/30/2008, -8/+8The religious dodos are digging you down.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1"religious dodos"? Strengthen your argument rather than name call; it actually lends credibility to one's comments rather than detract.
  • SHv2, on 04/30/2008, -9/+3nanoo nanoo
  • threemagic, on 04/30/2008, -3/+37From another article:

    "Gramm, a professor of English at Wheaton College, and his wife are in the midst of a split, and because he refuses to discuss the cause of the divorce with college officials -- school policy requires the divorce be within acceptable parameters -- he is resigning."

    he doesn't want to tell why he is divorcing AND he's resigning instead.
  • someperson22, on 04/30/2008, -18/+8What a joke. It is sad that people's lives get screwed up because someone believes that the man in sky thinks that what they have done is bad.
    • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -5/+7If you don't follow and uphold the rules at your work you can quit or get fired.
  • R0l0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+15"Debated on a facebook site".
    Ah yes, on which of the internets was this?
  • patpl22391, on 04/30/2008, -6/+30It's a private college, right? They can do whatever they want. Personally, I would not work at a school that has that kind of standards.
    • pinguwin, on 04/30/2008, -12/+4No, they can't. There are many things they can do in this case, fire someone for a divorce. But "whatever they want". Nope. Think a little on this one and I'm sure you can come up with things they can't do.

      I knew people who went to Wheaton College. You can keep it, if you like.
      • patpl22391, on 04/30/2008, -0/+9I didn't mean literally "whatever they want". I do apologize for not fully disclosing that.
      • sdlvx, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3I'm sorry you know people who went there. I've never seen a bigger bunch of bible humping pseudo-intellectual retards clustered in such a dense space.
  • CannedMango, on 04/30/2008, -15/+13Hey, if you want to work for the wing-nuts you've got to live by their rules.
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Actually, it's not just "wing-nuts" who have rules.
      • CannedMango, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2No, it's not... it's just the wing-nuts who have the nuttiest rules.
  • Crossmenjeff, on 04/30/2008, -7/+17if he's getting divorced due to a situation that would not be reflective of the college's values then it would be entirely appropriate to remove him from his position.
  • PHiZ187, on 04/30/2008, -17/+12What do you expect form a "Christian evangelical" college?
    http://www.wheaton.edu/
    • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -7/+6"What do you expect form a "Christian evangelical" college?" Biblical values and the instruction of them. Role modeling of these values in both faculty and staff. No one is forced to attend there or teach there.
      • wildbillhick, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6How is putting your nose in someone else's business Biblical?
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -6/+3The fact that he's an employee and is bound by rules that affect his personal life, it *is* the business of the school.
        • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Within the Christian community and the Body of Christ, Christians are to hold one another accountable for their actions. It is not construed as "putting your nose in someone else's business " unless one does not have the right of relationship with that person. In this case, the college definitely does,i.e., has the appropriate relationship, and in fact , has a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of marriage because of the type of school it is and what it strives to teach - that marriage is a covenant made before and with God and is sacred.
      • PHiZ187, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4"Biblical values" imputes an interpretation of the bible. Evangelical's interpretation of it is ***** stupid.
        • these3remain, on 05/01/2008, -3/+1"Biblical values" imputes an interpretation of the bible. Evangelical's interpretation of it is ***** stupid."
          Biblical values may seem to imply (not impute, impute is a malapropism in your usage, look up the definition) interpretation but there are clear, moral absolutes provided in the Bible that aren't open to "interpretation"- regardless of how moral relativists feel. And to make a blanket statement regarding any group of people, in this case, Evangelical's, is not only ignorant, but grossly intolerant, too. Your offensive language is indicative of your character, too. Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.
      • unclefire, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3They technically violatged Equal opportunity laws-- cannot discrminate based on marital status. What gets me is that they fired somebody for converting to Catholicism.
        • these3remain, on 05/01/2008, -3/+1"cannot discrminate based on marital status.'
          They aren't discriminating based on marital status. They may even have divorced faculty/staff members working there; I know the Christian university where I worked did. They are enforcing their personnel policies and as a PRIVATE religious institution, they still have the freedom (at this point) to have Biblical standards for faculty and staff.
          "What gets me is that they fired somebody for converting to Catholicism."
          Are you referring to the professor who converted many years ago? That's the only one that comes to mind. In any event , it was not because of his conversion, it was because he no longer held the same beliefs as the school. Again, if one is going to work for a private, Christian organization, one should be willing to uphold the policies and standards of that organization. It's NOT just a job; it's a calling and ministry. If one cannot or does not wish to uphold those standards then one is free to work some place else.
      • Nannybell, on 05/01/2008, -4/+1Private institution. If you sign a contract, you are bound by it. No one made him sign it. What difference does it make to you anyway? Ok, we understand you think it's stupid. But your head is filled with socialist notions. All the socialist laws that have popped up in America over the past few decades have actually restricted our freedoms rather than promoted them. Liberals do not understand this.
        • avaugha4, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4No contract can hold itself above the laws of the nation, however.
  • itsonlycapital, on 04/30/2008, -9/+15What makes this even sadder (in my opinion) is that the guy--along with students--agreed with the "standards" the school is upholding. Sure, he signed the contract, but what a crappy thing to do to a person, especially at an already difficult time like that.
    • patpl22391, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5He signed the contract before he was going through his divorce, whenever he first started working there.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5He signed prior to going through a divorce and also not anticipating going through a divorce; it still does not negate the school's policy and shouldn't. If he has a Biblical basis for divorce, he would have disclosed it. Or perhaps not if he did not wish to cause embarrassment for his family.
    • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6The school said that they would give him one year to find a job before he had to leave so it was his choice to leave the school at the time he did.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Yea, this contract is interesting. One of my best friends from high school went there and they signed a contract stating that they could smoke, drink, and get this, dance! Smoking and drinking...sure. But dancing? But in their defense, they signed the contract willingly just as this professor did.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I think you meant "couldn't" not "could".
  • fabiosir, on 04/30/2008, -14/+8See, he'd have been much better off trying to rape his subordinates. Then he'd just be reassigned!
    • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -6/+3lol How sad and disgusting that is, it is most likely true! ha ha
  • shadowkiller137, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4ah Wheaton the highest number of churches per capita in the US
  • cadmiumpaint, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7Yeah it sucks...but they are a private institution and he knew the rules going in. Its a ***** deal but no sympathy for shoving yourself into a corner like that.
  • Suzilla, on 04/30/2008, -13/+8The school did him a favor by giving him an up-close and personal look at religious bigotry. Maybe he'll grow up now and ditch the cultural thumb-sucking.
  • sarusa, on 04/30/2008, -13/+5Nothing wrong with this. If you willingly get in bed with people you know are kooks, you shouldn't be surprised when they go kooky on you.
    • pe5t1lence, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1I know there is a joke there but I can't think of it!
  • easy4lif, on 04/30/2008, -3/+5Simple answer, its a private college, they fire him for little to no reason.
  • wshwe, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4Hopefully the people that decided to fire this person are cleaner than the driven snow.
  • pe5t1lence, on 04/30/2008, -9/+5Isn't there laws against this sort of thing? Whatever, now I know never to go anywhere near that place! Thanks Digg!
    • eir574, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Religious schools are allowed to use criteria for hiring and firing that would normally be considered discriminatory.
      • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3Yes, they are. Well, eir, there's been a tremendous amount of insulting remarks toward Christians and Christianity on this thread, that's for sure.
        • eir574, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3You know I never tried to say that this kind of thing doesn't happen. You also know that I've never claimed to try to correct it every time it happens, or even most of the time. You've been told by multiple people that I have done it in instances where I think it could help, but you won't acknowledge that because I haven't shown you the exact posts where it happened. (By the way, I don't tend to waste my time dealing with people on threads like this, where most comments are one or two line insults written by people who don't demonstrate much maturity. I've only ever done it in the context where someone is actually trying to debate and is dragging the level of discourse down through insults.)

          As you've said, no one has time to police digg. If you would like to continue to spend your time accusing me of hypocrisy everywhere I post, have fun.
          • these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I did not accuse you of hypocrisy on this thread; it's not about you all the time. I merely pointed out the fact that all the insults made about Christians on this thread would be impossible to address.
          • eir574, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2"I merely pointed out the fact that all the insults made about Christians on this thread would be impossible to address."

            And you did so in a continuation of threads elsewhere on digg in which you've accused me of hypocrisy and in which you keep bringing up a point (that it's impossible to address all of the insults made on digg) that was never in dispute.
  • swheatshot115, on 04/30/2008, -2/+10Right...about the whole "winged christian Evangelical kooks" thing. Wheaton is definitely a conservative christian school but that does not go for everyone there. Secondly, the professor may have been able to stay but he chose to resign not wanting to accuse his wife of whatever it may be. Third, simply because it is a conservative christian college does not mean it is a bad school...if you took the time to research you could realize that it has strong academics with successful graduates, I happen to know a few myself.
  • MissAttitude7, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3It's definitely asinine, but if he knew that when he took the job that's life!
    Some of us have lost our jobs for less.
  • rbk303, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4Of course! Don't you know that your employer owns every waking second of your life?
  • buhbyebot, on 04/30/2008, -9/+7"the majority of students support the college's decision"
    Good for them. That's what is most important here, what stupid ***** young people whom never been married think.
  • slimjim85, on 04/30/2008, -6/+6haha, I live in Wheaton. Its a fun town...


    ...sigh
    • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0I think you made the best comment so far!
  • llarbkd, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4Only if it was the Wheaton in Mass. We'd have been in the news.

    Sucks for that professor though.
    • IPatrickBateman, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Ah yeah,....back in the 90's.....1,000 girls and 5 boys.
  • yosserhughes, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7As much as I hate to admit it, the college is correct. If he knew the rules when he joined, he can't complain.

    Which is why it is so important to think before you commit yourself, just like voting; look what happened the last two times.

  • stogiesam88, on 04/30/2008, -8/+5One of the reasons I now hate Christian schools- too freakin moralistic. And it was my experience that this resulted in worse academics because you have to find teachers who agree and live a very strict, biblical lifestyle and who can't necessarily teach that well. I had a lot of dumb ***** as teachers in high school and am paying for it in college.
    • someperson22, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Its interesting I have an uncle who teaches in Qatar and he says exactly the same thing. Doesn't matter if you are useless as long as you do the whole religious thing all the time.
  • Koushiro, on 04/30/2008, -15/+5...

    JUST END RELIGION RIGHT NOW YOU STUPID IDIOTS. Thank you.
  • frontalpha, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Well I see foul play if he wasn't open about what happened to his marriage or he could have just been respectful for him and his wife by not telling what the divorce was about.But he said that for the sake of his wife he wouldn't go into detail so it's either he's implying that his wife caused the divorce or he's trying to blame his wife subliminally for what he actually did. So I think he did the right thing for him and the school by not telling what happened.
    • Aidje, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4FTA: "I think it's wrong to have to discuss your personal life with your employer," he said, "and I also don't want to be in a position of accusing my spouse, so I declined to appeal or discuss the matter in any way with my employer."
      Don't assume the worst. You don't know this man, and you know nothing of his character.
  • hitdrumhard, on 04/30/2008, -5/+10Interesting that, as a college with a religious basis, they wouldn't have a policy of forgiveness and/or repent, rather than tossing stones.
    • spudhead, on 04/30/2008, -0/+7This was along the lines of what I was thinking. The teacher is expected to uphold some level of morality for which he failed.

      How one treats the sinner is at least as important as the sin committed when attempting to take a moral high ground.
    • eir574, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I was about to post a comment along those lines, too. The other thing I don't understand is why the college has a policy that would require a person to discuss details of his failing marriage with a staff member. Once the situation gets to a point where the divorce is going to happen, the best thing for everyone is to keep it from becoming acrimonious, particularly if children are involved. The school is not helping that happen by putting one spouse in a position where he or she is encouraged (by virtue of wanting to keep the job) to reveal private marital information or even to just start giving a voice to blame. The article doesn't make it clear what the actual policy is; hopefully the staff member is at least a member of the clergy who holds the discussion under conditions in which he'd be bound to confidentiality (with the exception of a final yea or nay report to the school).
  • Ouroborus69, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3News Flash to Professor Gramm: You were teaching at a Christian school! What did you expect? Your status as a professor and terms of employment were determined by some cracked out ex-hebrews nearly two thousand years ago. Seriously. Didn't you at least look over that wacky Wheaton contract BEFORE you signed. I love it! Christian-on-Christian pummeling! Can't wait for the follow up of Reverend-on-Priest Smack Down!!!
  • elnerdo, on 04/30/2008, -2/+13To give a totally different counter argument to their policy:
    In biblical times, if you divorced your wife, you were basically ruining her life. No other man would marry her, and a woman without a husband was useless to society, so she'd end up as a beggar (or she'd end up dying).
    In modern times, if you divorce your wife she'll get another husband and keep working her job and live a fine life.
    The biblical rules outlined in the New Testament were made in a hugely different context, and shouldn't be taken in full.
    • proseandpromise, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2The Biblical (New Testament) commands on divorce are much more tied to the ancient Jew's understanding of sex than to any laws or customs about divorce. Now, you are right, the Christian teaching on divorce helped protect women, but it is at it's root theological. Paul's talking about "one flesh" is probably the most foundational on this. Marriage is sacramental. It is representative of the unity within the Trinity and the unity of Christ and the church. It also mirrors the oneness that is hinted at in Gen. 1:26 (Let us create man in our image....human kind created to parallel the unity in the Godhead). Marriage is a sacred and spiritual bond that is to be committed to, fought for, and not dissolved.

      Incidentally, St. Paul agreed with those of you who reject marriage. He said it was better not to bother.
  • zmon, on 04/30/2008, -5/+6Read Dawkins, Hitchens. Wake up. Smell coffee.
    • drachemorder, on 04/30/2008, -7/+3I use the writings of Dawkins and Hitchens as toilet paper. That's about all they're worth.
      • zmon, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3I don't embrace everything they write as you might with ancient scipture but using logic and reason as toilet paper? It reminds me of what I recently heard Father John Corapi say on relevantradio: "Rationale is the cancer of the mind". Sorry, I cannot accept that.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Why does everybody worship this man? Stop clinging on to a theory over a hundred year old with countless flaws in it.
      • zmon, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Only if you stop clinging to the theory of gravity which is much older. I worship no one. I wish to see empirical evidence, which there is overwhelming support of for evolution. Rejecting evolution seems to me to be ego-based just as the church once believed the earth was the center of the universe. As far as flaws that's called "God in the Gaps". I seriously hope you didn't worship Stein's movie Expelled. Regardless of our differences in opinion--peace.
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Since when in science was it not acceptable to question a theory?
          • zmon, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Please question anything as I believe it’s everyone’s duty to do so. However, for science you must present a falsifiable hypothesis (of which creation science has none), empirical data (again lacking) and a logical argument to your case. You have no case sir. It’s based on ancient scriptures and faith. I respect your right to your beliefs but not your beliefs. Is it so abhorrent to you that you descended from a lower life form? Do you believe there is a grand conspiracy in the science community to silence your God? There’s no conspiracy here, just logic and reason. If you are looking to fight for the good of humanity why not battle a greater evil like the falsehood of cults like Scientology. Ideas of science do not cause mental illness, brainwashing, financial ruin and loss of life—only enlightenment.
          • tehbored, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2It is perfectly acceptable, but only if you have evidence to back yourself up.
    • tehbored, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2You need a book to tell you what to believe? I'm an atheist because I saw through the religious ***** myself, not because some guy told me to in a book.
      • zmon, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Congratulations, that you were able to see thru so thoroughly yourself, that's very commendable, but when this religion fervor is enforced upon you from a very young age for many years it's almost like breaking out of a cult and de-programming. A virus as Dawkins puts it. Also, reading books by established intelligent articulate writer's is also a wonderful way in increase one's knowlege in any field.
  • FredFenster, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5'"And I feel that it's important for them to know that they're not somehow rejected by God for having more or less normal lives and for having lives that didn't work out the way they intended them to turn out," Gramm said.'

    How true.
  • zephc, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7Yeah, i mean, who ever heard of a Christian getting a divorce?

    Oh, wait:

    http://www.adivorcelawfirm.com/chirstian-divorce-r ...
    http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/divorce.htm

  • Vohu, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6I assume this college is not government funded. If it were then they should be required to meet or exceed EEO standards (which I'm sure would have made this employment termination illegal). If they are a completely private institution then they are well within their rights. Wrong on this issue maybe but within their rights as a private entity.
  • absurdist, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Do they receive any federal funds of any kind? Including federally backed student loans to their students? If so, they should be bound by the same rules that every other institution of higher learning that accepts those funds is bound by. If not, they're free to do as they please.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.