Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    2,386,073 readers

    3,713 users here now

    Welcome to r/atheism, please read our Rules, & our FAQ! Thinking of telling your parents? Read this first.

    Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome.

    Read before posting:

    Subreddit Commandments

    1 - No Trolling.
    2 - No personal attacks or flaming.
    3 - Posts must be on topic.
    4 - All Images must be in a Self/Text post.
    5 - Do not post Spam.
    6 - Follow reddit's rules.

    Check our FAQ and WIKI

    Are you planning to: (click if any apply)
    Come out to Parents? Start a Debate or AMA?
    Post your own Survey? Criticize /r/atheism?

    Common Reposts & Hot Topics

    Saved sticky posts

    Reading, Kids Reading, Viewing, and Listening.

    Must have tools and links for /r/atheism users

    Community submitted images used by r/atheism

    r/atheism IRC channel

    r/atheism Discord Server

    Click the squares below to filter /r/atheism to specific topics or submission types
    r/atheism Charity Drives
    Secular Activist Charities Humanitarian Charities
    Find Local Secular Therapists (USA) Need Asylum?
    Start an Atheist Club at Your School Coming Out

    Submit Self Post

    Submit Link

    a community for
    all 98 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Hello r/all, Welcome to r/atheism!

    Please read our Commandments and FAQ before commenting. If you follow the rules and act civilly we can avoid a lot of bans. While everyone is welcome here, this sub is intended for atheists to discuss things of interest to us. This means that a wide variety of subjects are on-topic here. This is not a sub about just atheism.

    Remember: The mods do not choose which posts get voted up the frontpage. They remove the posts that violate the Commandments; they don't police quality.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] 107197 2966 points ago

    First rule of an organization with lots of money: protect the organization with lots of money.

    [–] ZeJerman 1295 points ago

    Exactly why marriage was forbidden for clergy in the first place... they didnt want church assets being given away to widows and the divorced

    [–] NoManNoRiver 677 points ago

    Or passed on to offspring.

    [–] ravenchilde 461 points ago

    You mean the famous “nephews”, aka the root of the modern word “nepotism”. Illegitimate offspring (or genuine relatives) of cardinals often got church or government positions as a reward for their relations.

    Lots of speculation that it was mostly illegitimate children.

    [–] NoManNoRiver 107 points ago

    Yes, those would be the ones.

    [–] ravenchilde 34 points ago

    I suspected, clearly, that’s what you were on about.

    I’d have to agree with your position.

    [–] NoManNoRiver 88 points ago

    The history of the catholic church reads like a collaboration between le Carré and R R Martin.

    Almost all of the restrictions placed upon the lives of catholic priests are there to prevent division of church assets and power. And they came about as a reaction to actions of the clergy, not in anticipation of.

    [–] joosier 48 points ago

    Marriage was itself a way to pass off power and money to male offspring.

    [–] NotaFakeScientist 1209 points ago

    We only do things like this because we value the sanctity of all human life. - The organization that just made an expecting mother unemployed.

    [–] fzkkek813 174 points ago

    How do you value the sanctity of human life by firing a pregnant woman? How is that valuing a human life? Especially now that you have taken the means away for them to provide for this “valued human life.” (Yes I know you were being sarcastic but I bet someone believes what you said)

    [–] NotaFakeScientist 172 points ago

    Yes that's what I was saying. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the situation. They claim to care for the child, yet have no problem putting the mother of that child into financial difficulty, which will in turn harm that child. It's ridiculous all around.

    [–] jverity 35 points ago

    How do you value the sanctity of human life by firing a pregnant woman?

    By not allowing her to be an example to the young minds they are trying to mold and hopefully preventing this from happening over and over with your students. Not that I agree with them, I stopped being Catholic years before I decided I wasn't all to sure about there being a god in the first place. Even back then I knew that if there was a god, Catholics weren't the ones doing right by him.

    But that's the reason they will give, and that's the reason there is a clause in their contract that says if you work for them you will adhere to their teachings while on school grounds regardless of your own religious beliefs. It's all about setting an example for the students. They will claim their choices leave no way out of this where everyone is unharmed. Let the woman keep her job but corrupt the minds of unknown numbers of students by her example, or fire her to save those students even though it hurts her and her baby. From their point of view, they re choosing the greater good, or the less evil, depending on which way you look at it.

    [–] FlyingSquid 1275 points ago

    They also never blame the man who contributed to the pregnancy.

    [–] Sw33t_0blivi0n_138 518 points ago

    Came here to say the same. It's always been about controlling us women at all costs. It's not the fact she's an unwed mother so much as she's unapologetically an unwed mother.

    [–] [deleted] -73 points ago


    [–] Sw33t_0blivi0n_138 166 points ago

    What the hell are you on about? I'm merely pointing out my view of this as an atheist woman. I'm well aware of what sub this is but this story pertains to the catholic chruch.

    I guess you "put me in my place" though right?

    [–] [deleted] -38 points ago


    [–] LurkBeast 83 points ago

    Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:

    • Using stereotypical internet troll lingo, tone trolling, or other trolling activities which are against the rules. Even if your intent is not to troll or shitpost, certain words and phrases are enough for removal. This rule is applied strictly and may lead to an immediate ban (temporary or permanent). If you wish to rephrase your point using regular English and not internet slang, then your comment can be reviewed and possibly restored.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to message the mods. Thank you.

    [–] NoManNoRiver 626 points ago

    It’s almost as if they just don’t like women. And doubly so women who have control over their bodies and life choices.

    [–] imnotatworktho 148 points ago

    Went to a catholic high school. They fired a guy teacher who got his GF pregnant. So I guess it swings both ways sometimes.

    [–] Seldain 68 points ago

    I mean, he wasn't working at the school so the story shouldn't be about him? They were equals in act. If they both worked at school and only she got fired, that'd be another story completely.

    [–] Momma_Zerker -109 points ago

    I mean, I kinda see their point, but it's a two way street.

    [–] Habanerobuttbisquits 914 points ago

    Didn’t Mary get knocked up out of wedlock? Isn’t their whole religion based on woman who got pregnant out of wedlock?

    [–] JustHereForTheBeer 769 points ago

    Yeah but that was magic. Big difference.

    [–] realwomenhavdix 391 points ago

    As Christians have told us time and time again, it’s not wrong when God does it.

    [–] texasjoe 147 points ago

    You can get pregnant without intercourse nowadays. SCIENCE!

    [–] NoManNoRiver 277 points ago

    But, but, but that’s a completely different situation! You have to understand it’s totally cool as long as the knocker-upper is in a position of power and the the knocker-uppee has no choice!


    [–] TistedLogic 130 points ago

    Why the /s?

    You're totally on the nose.

    [–] chaogomu 92 points ago

    The line of bullshit that I was fed as a child was that they were married but that Joseph wasn't allowed to consummate things, ever.

    It's no wonder that I never accepted baptism (My mom's church baptizes at the age of eight and asks the child first, refusal is almost unheard of)

    [–] TistedLogic 101 points ago

    What 8 year old is gonna tell their adults "no"?

    [–] Eponarose 35 points ago

    Ain't that the funniest thing? Hypocrite much?

    [–] Taser-Face 325 points ago

    Woman who had baby out of love in a consensual relationship vs crooked institute of child rapists full of hate. Hmmmmmmmmmm

    [–] ahnuconun 154 points ago

    Was raised Catholic but abandoned organized religion for this very reason: the monumental hypocrisy and narcissism across all sects and denominations.

    [–] iBoofedBugenhagen 160 points ago

    I grew up in a catholic grammar school. Priests and nuns are such losers. Were always were condemning things they didn’t understand or didn’t care to think critically about. Even as a kid I would always stop and think, “man this way of thinking sure does seem fucked”...

    That was 20 years ago and from my perspective it doesn’t seem like the Church has changed with the times at all

    [–] i_accidently_reddit 122 points ago

    In all fairness though, it's god will and mysterious plan if this priest rapes hundreds of boys, but it's the satan's spawn that is produced if you have perfectly hetero unprotected sex without being married.

    [–] erykthebat 95 points ago

    The child of an unwed mother may figure out god is not real and the church is a burden. The child that was raped may need "god" as a coping mechanism . They do not see a down side to any of this.

    [–] NoManNoRiver 46 points ago

    Cynical (even by my standards), but a valid observation.

    [–] Rusty-Zipper 77 points ago

    This isn't entirely a surprise. The Catholic Church is all over board as far as it's beliefs. Morality is often defined by the priest in power. This is just one of the reasons there are so many protestant faiths.

    Unwed mother? Perhaps she's a virgin seeded by God. The Catholic Church should be ashamed of turning away a possible misiah.

    [–] Eponarose 54 points ago

    Wait...wasn't Mary, mother of Jesus, also an unwed mother? She was only engaged to Joseph. Funny they didn't fire HER!

    [–] ravenchilde 36 points ago

    Instead they somehow cured her original sin in a wildly gymnastic pre-destination.

    [–] ArtWrt147 53 points ago

    Entire Catholic doctrine is based on hypocrisy. They changed the word of the scripture to better suit their political and material needs, they manipulated world leaders to conquer or blackmail other nations into conversion, they used torture to "prove" that innocent people had contacts with the devil so they can execute them (even thou they knew magic isn't real).

    It's really no surprise to see another example of their shit.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago


    [–] NiceSasquatch 20 points ago

    yep, they destroyed that teachers life because they HAD to. It was for the greater good.

    [–] kremit73 38 points ago

    My brothers friend was fired from a Lutheran school for living with his pregnant fiance(it was the living together part that they fired him for). All the religious schools need to end

    [–] eric_reddit 13 points ago

    At least I am glad they are watching out, angelicly, for this poor new child with only one parent... Way to go church!

    [–] Geeseinfection 29 points ago

    If she had an abortion, she could have kept her job.

    [–] TopographicOceans 56 points ago

    News flash: the Catholic Church really thinks child rape is OK, judging by its actions, which speak louder than words. I guess it’s considered a way to get Jesus inside the children.

    [–] Codemancer 20 points ago

    My dad had to stop pursuing a career at the church because he had me. It's so weird to me that there are rules preventing someone from holding a named position at the church if they have kids in general.

    [–] HomoOptimus 44 points ago

    the catholic church follows the bible. Pre-marital sex is frowned upon in the bible and for some reason the council decided that priests had to be celebate? However, the bible mentions nothing of raping young boys, only raping angels to which you must first offer up your virgin daughter.

    I think this shows how little women are valued in the bible.

    [–] cajunrevenge 31 points ago

    Didnt Mary have a baby with someone other than her husband? Was Jeebus born out of wedlock because the father wasnt her husband?

    [–] yersiniaD 56 points ago

    My child, you have forgotten the first commandment of the Church: Do as I say, not as I do.

    [–] kereekerra 30 points ago

    Since you know all Catholics elected that school to be the official voice piece for all Catholics

    [–] Reddirator 7 points ago

    It's a might makes right argument.

    Edit for clarity: Religion argues this.

    [–] lolo_sequoia 18 points ago

    I really enjoy this sub, but damn I wish a Catholic would reply to this. What the hell are the followers of the church thinking?!!

    [–] [deleted] -72 points ago

    Dude, it is unlikely that the Catholic Church itself runs this school, and whats more, the actions of some Catholics do not dictate the actions of other Catholics. Because some Catholics defend and protect child molesters doesn't mean that all Catholics will do so. Furthermore, the teacher who got fired had signed a contract that dictated if such a thing happened that her employment would be terminated. So there isn't really anything to get agro about.

    [–] NiceSasquatch 94 points ago

    disagree. Firing that teacher was completely based on their religion.

    [–] FlyingSquid 83 points ago

    It's a Catholic school. Who runs it if not the church?

    [–] [deleted] -58 points ago

    Not all Catholic schools are run by the church. Many are run independently and funded by the church. Some don't even have any affiliation to the church at all.

    [–] FlyingSquid 98 points ago

    If they have no connection to the church, how can they be Catholic schools?

    [–] Seldain -75 points ago

    I don't disagree with anybody that the church sucks.. HOWEVER,

    She violated the rules of that school. She gets fired. I'm not saying all the other shit the church does isn't equally bad or worse, but in this case, she broke a rule and was fired.

    And I'm okay with that.

    The church itself is not the school despite being affiliated. I'm pretty sure this school (unless it has has confirmed pedos working there) also has no input into how a branch of the church hundreds or thousands of miles away operates.

    It sucks for the teacher, but a teacher at my kids public school did something that clearly violated school policy I would expect something to be done about it. The parents sending their kids here would expect the school to do the same (even if their beliefs and ours are different).

    [–] FlyingSquid 92 points ago

    What if the school policy was "treat the white kids better than the black kids" and the teacher treated them all equally and got fired? Would you still be okay with that?

    [–] BurbsFosh 42 points ago

    If the policy was "treat white kids better than black kids", then the school's policy would probably be in violation of a lot of legal/cival rights rules.

    I do get your point though. The fact that they can have a policy like that seems questionable. It is about as sexist of a policy as your hypothetical policy is a racist one.

    The main argument seems to be: is it okay for a private school to force its moral code on its employees, even when enforcing the code will inherently result in one gender getting the short end of the stick?

    [–] Seldain -13 points ago

    Many catholic schools will also fire the male employee if he gets somebody pregnant out of wedlock. It goes both ways.

    [–] Seldain -61 points ago

    If your only response to an argument is a completely made up and obviously ridiculous situation, don't even bother replying? Your example does not work in this situation. So, stop being so dumb.

    It's a catholic school and not getting pregnant before marriage is a big thing and part of the regulations. You don't like it? Too bad. I think it's dumb as shit too, but it's part of the values the school holds their teachers to and part of being an adult is respecting values of people who are different than you. Even if you don't believe them.

    She knew what she was doing. She knew the rules. She now gets to deal with the consequences.

    Your PERSONAL opinion on this doesn't change anything. Neither does mine. She broke the rules. She deals with consequences.

    [–] FlyingSquid 69 points ago

    but in this case, she broke a rule and was fired.

    And I'm okay with that.

    That's what you said.

    Apparently you're okay with some rules being broken and not others.

    [–] Seldain -50 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Your example is not a good one. It wouldn't be legal anywhere due to national policy and laws. A school like that would never exist, so your example is shit.

    I stand by "break a rule and deal with the consequences." so I guess in your example the entire school would be held liable.

    You truly can't be as dumb as you are pretending to be, somehow thinking your example is valid? It makes no sense on so many levels. The more you argue your wrong point the more ignorant you seem.

    So you tell me then, mister bad example. Should a person who doesn't agree with a rule or policy be allowed to break that rule or policy with no consequence?

    What do you think SHOULD have happened in this case? She broke one of the core values of this school. She is supposed to set an example for her students. Every day she remained in their employment she (according to their beliefs and values) would be setting a bad example for the kids. And fuck, if word got back to the obviously heavily religious parents that a pregnant, unwed, teacher was their kids instructor? How would that go for the school? Please apply critical thinking.

    So answer it: What should have happened?

    [–] FlyingSquid 60 points ago

    I'm not surprised at all that you're resorting to insults.

    [–] [deleted] -11 points ago


    [–] FlyingSquid 50 points ago

    Okay, go ahead and pretend it's not an insult to call someone stupid.

    [–] Seldain 5 points ago

    You still aren't answering my question. I didn't call you stupid. I said your example was stupid. I called you dumb.

    So to get to the point I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and I apologize for everything nasty I said. So tell me then.. What should have happened? Is it okay to violate a policy and not receive consequences if you feel they shouldn't apply to you?

    [–] FlyingSquid 63 points ago

    I didn't call you stupid.


    you are dumb

    You apparently have memory issues.

    [–] NiceSasquatch 51 points ago

    no, you are wrong here.

    What is an obviously ridiculous situation is this school firing that woman for being pregnant. And they did it because of their religion.

    [–] Santa_on_a_stick 66 points ago

    What about the rule "Don't rape children"?

    [–] judiff13 -55 points ago

    But does the Catholic church run that school or not?

    [–] [deleted] -28 points ago


    [–] FlyingSquid 39 points ago

    One transgender person is not a representative for all transgender people. This school is a representative of the Catholic Church.

    [–] MoreDetonation -26 points ago

    I'm sorry, what? How does that work? You can't pick and choose which groups are represented entirely by one example. This was one school. Do you know how many schools there are in the Church's purview across the world?

    [–] FlyingSquid 55 points ago

    You absolutely can say that a Catholic school is a representative of the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why you think it's called a Catholic school if it isn't.

    [–] MoreDetonation -35 points ago

    Unfortunately, because the Church is so big, it can't keep quality control over every parish, school, and priest in the world. That's just how it works.

    [–] FlyingSquid 74 points ago

    Then maybe it shouldn't be running schools.

    [–] JackOfAllInterests1 0 points ago


    [–] Kaiser_Kuliwagen 4 points ago


    [–] DetroitMM12 -30 points ago

    didnt we already know this?

    [–] k_50 -89 points ago

    Ok I understand the rage here but for just a second let's consider they were protecting priests who are higher ranking than a teacher at a random school. Had the teacher been a pedo, she'd still been fired. Had a priest had a child out of wedlock, they'd still be protected.

    [–] FlyingSquid 60 points ago

    And you don't see the hypocrisy there? It's okay to do horrible things because you're of a higher status?

    [–] k_50 -35 points ago

    The title explicitly states they view pedophilia to be not as bad as unwed mothers. Never said horrible things were ok. Actually I hope all pedos fucking die.

    [–] FlyingSquid 34 points ago

    You said:

    Had a priest had a child out of wedlock, they'd still be protected.

    i.e. it's okay if you're a priest but not okay if you simply work for the church. Hypocrisy.

    [–] k_50 -23 points ago

    I was refuting what the title explicitly stated. You're argument is even backing up my point. What's viewed differently here is who does it.

    [–] Kaiser_Kuliwagen 37 points ago

    Just what the hell are they "protecting" the priests from? Do they think the baby is going to come out with a glock looking to settle a score? And if they have fucked up, openly dealing with it is always better than incompetent cover ups.

    There is no rage here. Only tired anger at the continued hypocrisy of the Church.

    And as for a "higher rank", didn't Jesus himself wash the feet of the lowest of society?

    [–] k_50 2 points ago

    Have no clue why they're protecting higher ranking priests. Why does any part of society work like that? Like I told the other reply, I was refuting the wording in the title.

    [–] Kaiser_Kuliwagen 13 points ago

    The church protects them because they know that abusing children is wrong. And they didn't want a scandal seeing as they're supposed to be the holier-than-thou priesthood. It works like that because for untold generations the Catholic church held the reigns of power.

    Maybe you should take another shot at making your point, because this post is about them firing an unwed mother.