Cape Coral woman banned from teaching

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Cape Coral woman banned from teaching
45
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 1:49pm
after marrying partner

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=33214

By Associated Press

Thursday, June 24, 2004

FORT MYERS, Fla. - A 62-year-old Cape Coral woman who married her lesbian partner in Massachusetts was banned from teaching in the Christian Science church after she refused to ``repent'' for her actions.

Kathleen Clementson returned her teaching credentials and left the church. Her former students are now considered by the Christian Science board of directors to have had no primary instruction.

Clementson married Suzanne Nightingale, 49, on a Cape Cod beach on May 20, before Massachusetts began enforcing a ban on gay marriages by out-of-state couples. The women have since bought a town house in that state, and said they plan to move there.

An Associated Press photo taken at the service was sent to newspapers around the world, and many people recognized Clementson's name in connection with the church, she said.

The church sent Clementson a letter in early June saying she had abused her role as a teacher, but did not define the abuse. The letter directed her to cut ties with former students, and said she could teach again only if she repented and served a three-year probation.

``They were not specific,'' Clementson said. ``I don't feel I have anything to repent for more than anyone else.''

The Boston-based church said Thursday it was preparing a statement about the incident which it planned to release by the end of the day. A local governing board member said the Christian Science Church of Cape Coral will abide by the Mother Church's decision.

Clementson's former students who are now church-approved practitioners can no longer advertise their services in the Christian Science Journal, or take annual refresher courses.

But few people will be seriously affected by the board's decision, Clementson said.

A former student, Hal Gimlin, of North Carolina, said he will maintain his relationship with Clementson - and the church.

``I love my religion,'' he said. ``I'm not thrilled with what is going on. I think they overdid it.''


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 10:36am
I think of the trust of a child in a parent... how unconditional, how total it is. And I'd venture prior to all of the pedophile scandal most members of the church had trust in priests that may have been close to unconditional trust. To have that preyed upon, to in turn have them prey upon children who certainly had an unconditional level of trust, to me is simply heinous. And in turn, how it was handled by church authorities is equally heinous, yet the bishop in this state refuses to step down, and they try to block or negotiate every attempt at justice. Justice means stepping down, justice means getting out of the way and letting authorities have all records, and calling all the shots until it is settled.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 10:39am
Agreed... the Eagles did a song that touched on that hypocrisy...


She came from Providence, the one in Rhode Island

where the old world shadows hang heavy in the air.

She packed her hopes and dreams like a refugee,

just as her father came across the sea.

She heard about a place people were smilin',

they spoke about the red man's way, how they loved the land.

And they came from everywhere to the Great Divide

seeking a place to stand or a place to hide.

Down in the crowded bars out for a good time,

can't wait to tell you all what it's like up there.

And they called it paradise, I don't know why.

Somebody laid the mountains low while the town got high.

Then the chilly winds blew down across the desert,

through the canyons of the coast to the Malibu

where the pretty people play hungry for power

to light their neon way and give them things to do.

Some rich man came and raped the land, nobody caught 'em,

put up a bunch of ugly boxes and, Jesus, people bought 'em.

And they called it paradise, the place to be,

they watched the hazy sun sinking in the sea.

You can leave it all behind and sail to Lahaina

just like the missionaries did so many years ago.

They even brought a neon sign 'Jesus is Coming',

brought the white man's burden down, brought the white man's reign.

Who will provide the grand design, what is yours and what is mine?

'Cause there is no more new frontier, we have got to make it here.

We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds

in the name of destiny and in the name of God.

And you can see them there on Sunday morning

stand up and sing about what it's like up there.

They called it paradise, I don't know why.

You call some place paradise - kiss it goodbye.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 10:47am
I have that song...and it's only

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 10:49am
>>True. But how many are in positions of leadership, publically announce it, and then continue to disobey the church? I'd venture to say not many and the church would be remiss if it didn't correct the issue.<<

So this is another tired attempt at "don't ask, don't tell?" Something that needs to be also thrown out the window. Bigotry is unacceptable. It cannot be officially sanctioned, it has to be legally wrong to discriminate, else people will find all sorts of ways to hide their bigotry behind these havens.


>>They aren't discriminating. They are saying here is a list of behavior we feel is wrong. If you are in leadership you are expected to obey the rules of the church, if you don't you will be removed from leadership. They didn't remove her from the church did they?<<

Yeah, they are discriminating. Rules that violate equal rights are no rules at all, and should be legally challengeable... and given they get tax breaks from us... to heck with them being private... if you wish to be truly private, no access to government funds and no tax breaks. Rules schmules... a bigot is a bigot.

>>That is open to debate.<<

No it's not. You won't debate me over it. My orientation is not placed on a table for you to ponder and pass judgement. It is.

>>Like kermit said "It ain't easy being green"<<

Perhaps everyone needs to be green occasionally to get a feel for what it is like.

>>In some cases it is. In others it isn't. I don't dislike homosexuals, I dislike homosexuality. I do believe it is wrong and unnatural. Does that mean I hate the person? Of course not. I also dislike the behaviorial actions of other people, doesn't mean I dislike the people.<<

In *all* cases it is. No exceptions, no excuses. And anyone who holds those views are bigoted. I'm sorry, but it is a fact they will have to reconcile with themselves. And before you go there, I find use of the word "lifestyle" offensive.




Edited 6/25/2004 10:56 am ET ET by rayeellen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 10:50am
It gives me chills every time I hear it...
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 11:07am
"So this is another tired attempt at "don't ask, don't tell?""

Then based on your theory no organization can set standards and enforce them. Sorry but that doesn't fly. She FREELY CHOSE to take the job, knowing their standards and then broke them. She lost her job and rightfully so. She knew the rules going in.

"Bigotry is unacceptable."

Agreed, this isn't bigotry.

"You won't debate me over it."

I'm not looking to. However, the subject is a debatable one.

"My orientation is not placed on a table for you to ponder and pass judgement"

Not interested in doing so.

"Perhaps everyone needs to be green occasionally to get a feel for what it is like. "

I'd venture to say most everyone is at some point in their life.

"In *all* cases it is. "

That sounds like absolute moralism. I wouldn't think you believe in it. I agree bigotry is wrong this isn't bigotry though.

"I find use of the word "lifestyle" offensive. "

Well....ok...I'll find a synonym if the need arises.

The problem is that your making this a debate about homosexuality. It should be a debate about an organization's right to set standards for its members and then expect them to be followed. You are forgetting a KEY point. She FREELY CHOSE to join the organization knowing their beliefs. She made this an issue not the church.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 11:20am
>>Then based on your theory no organization can set standards and enforce them. Sorry but that doesn't fly. She FREELY CHOSE to take the job, knowing their standards and then broke them. She lost her job and rightfully so. She knew the rules going in.<<

Actually, I think it flies quite well. You are free to set standards that don't violate the rights of others, and the law.



>>Agreed, this isn't bigotry.<<

Ah, but it is. As bigoted as it gets.

>>I'm not looking to. However, the subject is a debatable one.<<

Only among hets, not with lgbt people. Debate yourselves all you like. Rights should not be subject to vote, and if it takes courts to set it right, then that is how we get it done. If it takes social activism... we'll do that as well. We'll get there. In my lifetime we have made great strides against bigotry... this is the last bastion of bigotry, the last thing bigots can cling to... now they just have to find a way to accept everyone. Imagine that! Must be so very hard for them... poor bigots.

>>That sounds like absolute moralism. I wouldn't think you believe in it. I agree bigotry is wrong this isn't bigotry though.<<

I don't compromise on rights, and never will.

>>The problem is that your making this a debate about homosexuality. It should be a debate about an organization's right to set standards for its members and then expect them to be followed. You are forgetting a KEY point. She FREELY CHOSE to join the organization knowing their beliefs. She made this an issue not the church.<<

An organisation fired an employee because they are gay. Their are two issues here, even if you only wish to discuss one. That is your choice.

By the way, you forget discrimination is not acceptable. I agree she may not be able to stop what they did, but it is important this story get out there so that people see the human cost of discrimination... how ugly it is, how it hurts, how it is rooted in ignorance and judgement based on ignorance.








iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 11:29am
"You are free to set standards that don't violate the rights of others, and the law. "

"Rights should not be subject to vote"

What rights were violated?

"An organisation fired an employee because they are gay."

No the didn't. They fired her because she was gay, she was a leader, she violated their standards, she was public about it, and she was unwilling to repent.

She could have been gay and been a member of the church, just not a leader.

Suppose I got a leadership job at NOW by professing to support their beliefs. Do you think NOW would fire me if on the weekends I was out talking about how I believe a woman's place is in the home barefoot and pregnant? You better believe they would and it would be their right.

You keep ignoring the idea that SHE FREELY CHOSE to go to the church about the job. She accepted their paychecks and the rules that went along with them. She was not coerced into taking the job. Choices have ramifications, she made one and had to deal with the fall out.

"By the way, you forget discrimination is not acceptable."

No I didn't I just don't see discrimination.

" how it is rooted in ignorance and judgement based on ignorance. "

They only ignorance in this case was on the teacher's part. To think she could do what she did and retain her job. How ignorant could she be.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 11:38am
>>What rights were violated?<<

Again, she was fired because she is gay.

>>No the didn't. They fired her because she was gay, she was a leader, she violated their standards, she was public about it, and she was unwilling to repent.<<

You just said she was fired for being gay. Oy. Why should she repent for something that is a fundamental part of her, and is not wrong? The ones in need of repenting are the bigots that fired her.

>>She could have been gay and been a member of the church, just not a leader.<<

Suppose I got a leadership job at NOW by professing to support their beliefs. Do you think NOW would fire me if on the weekends I was out talking about how I believe a woman's place is in the home barefoot and pregnant? You better believe they would and it would be their right.<<

What right of yours was violated in that scenario? Did they fire you because you are a man? Gay? Does NOW hold bigoted views? Are they violating human rights?

>>You keep ignoring the idea that SHE FREELY CHOSE to go to the church about the job. She accepted their paychecks and the rules that went along with them. She was not coerced into taking the job. Choices have ramifications, she made one and had to deal with the fall out.<<

And you keep ignoring she was fired for being gay, and it isn't right. We might not be able to change their bigoted views, but we can stop them from discriminating against their employees.


>>No I didn't I just don't see discrimination.<<

Nor do they. That is the sad part. :(

>>They only ignorance in this case was on the teacher's part. To think she could do what she did and retain her job. How ignorant could she be.<<

Wrong. Bigotry is rooted in ignorance and insecurity, and her employers clearly demonstrated both.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-25-2004 - 11:46am
"You just said she was fired for being gay."

No I just said that was PART of the reason, not THE reason. Oy back at ya.

"What right of yours was violated in that scenario?"

Golly...uh....Free Speech?

"And you keep ignoring she was fired for being gay, and it isn't right."

I addressed it, now how about addressing her free choice which you still haven't done. She knowingly took a job for an organization that believe HS is a sin.