16 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobtis a good point, but we lack either her experience nor know what her point of reference is, therefore we cannot assume that its on a purely religious basis and even if it was, its still discriminatory.
Let's break it down.
Firstly, she is a doctor, so therefore she has studied using the scientific framework and has to base her views on the evidence. As i understand it, and i have had a brief look, there are no studies that show a child adopted into a same-sex household does any better or worse than a child adopted into a hetrosexual household. How g ...[text shortened]... on base their reasonings on the evidence and not the writings of a Bronze Age desert tribesman.
16 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAfter reading a few articles, you get a semblance of the whole story.
tis a good point, but we lack either her experience nor know what her point of reference is, therefore we cannot assume that its on a purely religious basis and even if it was, its still discriminatory.
It turns out Dr Matthews role in the adoption process was to assess whether couples who were being considered for adoption were suitable on health grounds. Earlier this year she had to assess a same-sex couple and refused or abstained on her decision becasue the couple was gay citing the reasons we all have read.
What strikes me as a bit strange about this, is that Dr Matthews clearly has issues regarding homosexuality that stem from her religious beliefs. She must have also known that UK law allows same-sex couples to adopt, so why put yourself into that position knowing that a conflict of interest will surely arise at some point in the future? It seems a little bizarre.
16 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobShe probably wanted to stick by her principles, even if it is detrimental to her career. Also with the hope to gain a following (a bit like a martyr).
What strikes me as a bit strange about this, is that Dr Matthews clearly has issues regarding homosexuality that stem from her religious beliefs. She must have also known that UK law allows same-sex couples to adopt, so why put yourself into that position knowing that a conflict of interest will surely arise at some point in the future? It seems a little bizarre.
Not that I agree with her, of course.
EDIT: Considering it went to court, she probably also thought that she could foolishly get the law to see her point of view and be lenient.
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLike I said, "Seems like you fail to grasp the purpose of having anti-discrimination legislation". It is protect those who would otherwise be discriminated against. Fortunately there are enough people in goverment who recognize that such legislation is necessary to protect such individuals from those who believe they are "justified" to practice discrimination like yourself. How you can not understand that point is beyond me. Your rhetoric is not unlike what I would expect from those who believe the KKK is similarly "justified" to discriminate as they see fit. I'm sure they'd similarly claim to be against "unjust" discrimination like you did in your post. Evidently they see themselves as "the voice of White Christian America" (http://kukluxklan.bz/about.html). Do you similarly support their "right" to maintain their "core religious ideals"?
[b]They are free to practice their religion all they like. What they are not free to do is continue to practice discrimination.
But they are not free to practice their religion when religious institutions are compelled against their religious doctrines and must compromise their mission. Discrimination is a key part of any religious organisati y. Most people, whatever they do, like to think that they are justified. What's your point?[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLook, clearly you are not mature enough to engage in civilised debate, evidently feeling the need to resort to comparisons with racism. I don't appreciate that. I am not saying that all forms of discrimination are justifiable and I would abhor any attempt to justify the racial prejudice. I support anti-discrimination laws. However, if we are to respect the rights of political and religious organisations, some discrimination is necessary. The secularist society cannot be required to hire a theist; the Tories cannot be required to consider Marxists as candidates; Christian churches need to be able to discriminate in favour of their religious adherents. It makes no sense to require, for example, Catholic schools to employ staunch atheists. You might say that this is to protect the rights of those who would be discriminated against; it's actually quite a sensible exception to enable religious organisations to preserve their religious identity.
Like I said, "Seems like you fail to grasp the purpose of having anti-discrimination legislation". It is protect those who would otherwise be discriminated against. Fortunately there are enough people in goverment who recognize that such legislation is necessary to protect such individuals from those who believe they are "justified" to practice discrimina ...[text shortened]... o you similarly support their "right" to maintain their "core religious ideals"?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI will also add that a number of states have provided exceptions in anti-discrimination legislation to protect the rights of religious organisations. In fact in my state, Victoria, parliament recently passed new anti-discrimination laws but explicitly exempted religious organisations. You can read a submission of the Melbourne archbishop to this debate here:
Look, clearly you are not mature enough to engage in civilised debate, evidently feeling the need to resort to comparisons with racism. I don't appreciate that. I am not saying that all forms of discrimination are justifiable and I would abhor any attempt to justify the racial prejudice. I support anti-discrimination laws. However, if we are to respe e a sensible exception to enable religious organisations to preserve their religious identity.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/balancing-religion-and-rights-the-case-for-discrimination-20091003-gha1.html
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KTwas vewy intwesting article,
I will also add that a number of states have provided exceptions in anti-discrimination legislation to protect the rights of religious organisations. In fact in my state, Victoria, parliament recently passed new anti-discrimination laws but explicitly exempted religious organisations. You can read a submission of the Melbourne archbishop to this debate here ...[text shortened]... society-and-culture/balancing-religion-and-rights-the-case-for-discrimination-20091003-gha1.html
The right to religious freedom is fundamental to the health and development of a free society. While that right is protected in Australia, religious organisations have every right to deliver services in accordance with their beliefs and practices. The announcement strikes a fair balance between the right to be free from discrimination and the right of religious organisations to act consistently with their beliefs.
clearly this is not the case in the materialistic UK, where one can be subject to job dismissal, labelled a bigot and in the case of several small businesses, subject to prosecution.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieclearly this is not the case in the materialistic UK, where one can be subject to job dismissal, labelled a bigot and in the case of several small businesses, subject to prosecution.
Twas vewy intwesting article,
The right to religious freedom is fundamental to the health and development of a free society. While that right is protected in Australia, religious organisations have every right to deliver services in accordance with their beliefs and practices. The announcement strikes [b]a fair balance between the right to be fre ...[text shortened]... issal, labelled a bigot and in the case of several small businesses, subject to prosecution.[/b]
It's a tricky balance. There are a number of situations where I agree that state should supervene religious rights. As you know from previous discussions, I believe that the state should be allowed to compel blood transfusions even in the case of young adolescents who have very strong religious objections. But not to pick on your religion, I also believe that the state should be allowed to require sex ed in Catholic schools too. I also think there are limits to how far religious rights extend. I do not believe that, for example, religious organisations can discriminate in regard to non-essential jobs, such as cleaners or gardeners.
This case strikes me as bizarre though. This woman was a medical doctor. Her primary role, as far as I have read, was to assess the health of candidates. She respectfully asked not to be involved in cases involving same-sex couples because she did not want to be partial. She respected council policy. The number of same-sex applicants was minimal and, according to her, only about one twentieth. Her sacking seems completely bigoted. If she were Muslim though....
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K1/20th is significant, especially when it's regards to people. Her job is to assess these applicants and she is NOT doing it. You and I would get fired for not doing 5% of a required job, and apply these numbers to people and the responsibility is that much more. She is doing a social job and if she doesn't want to help the people she's supposed to, then I don't see why it's not warranted to can her. It's a hinderance (of resources,time and people) to have someone not fulfill their position, now you need to compensate by devoting other things towards it. And it's a hinderance to the foster kids who need a home if potential candidates' applications are being delayed by such a nuisance.
This case strikes me as bizarre though. This woman was a medical doctor. Her primary role, as far as I have read, was to assess the health of candidates. She respectfully asked not to be involved in cases involving same-sex couples because she did not want to be partial. She respected council policy. The number of same-sex applicants was minimal and, accord ...[text shortened]... r, only about one twentieth. Her sacking seems completely bigoted. If she were Muslim though....
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOh, please. I said nothing about "racism" nor that you contend that "all forms of discrimination are justifiable". You've created and attacked straw men. I think you're sharp enough to understand that the point is that your assertion that "religious organizations" should have the "right" to practice discrimination in order to maintain their " "core religious ideals" is not valid. It's no more valid for the RCC than it its for the KKK. I think you recognize that it's not valid for the KKK (and therefore the RCC), but to avoid having to admit it you chose to throw a little hissy fit instead. If "religious organizations" or members thereof choose to engage in secular public services such as adoption, then they must set aside their bigoted and prejudicial views while doing so. If they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.
Look, clearly you are not mature enough to engage in civilised debate, evidently feeling the need to resort to comparisons with racism. I don't appreciate that. I am not saying that all forms of discrimination are justifiable and I would abhor any attempt to justify the racial prejudice. I support anti-discrimination laws. However, if we are to respe ...[text shortened]... e a sensible exception to enable religious organisations to preserve their religious identity.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by ua41Agreed. If a worker is unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of a job because of bigoted views no matter the source, then it is right to remove them from their position.
1/20th is [b]significant, especially when it's regards to people. Her job is to assess these applicants and she is NOT doing it. You and I would get fired for not doing 5% of a required job, and apply these numbers to people and the responsibility is that much more. She is doing a social job and if she doesn't want to help the people she's supposed to, then ...[text shortened]... need a home if potential candidates' applications are being delayed by such a nuisance.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAhem. She was doing her job. She did not propose to neglect 5% of her duties but rather to review heterosexual candidates instead of homosexual couples. Provided that another medical officer was willing to exchange, then presumably no dereliction would occur. In fact, if you search through the news items, you will find that this story is old. The woman lost her appeal but was reinstated by the council anyway.
Oh, please. I said nothing about "racism" nor that you contend that "all forms of discrimination are justifiable". You've created and attacked straw men. I think you're sharp enough to understand that the point is that your assertion that "religious organizations" should have the "right" to practice discrimination in order to maintain their " "core religi ...[text shortened]... they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOh, please. I said nothing about "racism" nor that you contend that "all forms of discrimination are justifiable". You've created and attacked straw men.
Oh, please. I said nothing about "racism" nor that you contend that "all forms of discrimination are justifiable". You've created and attacked straw men. I think you're sharp enough to understand that the point is that your assertion that "religious organizations" should have the "right" to practice discrimination in order to maintain their " "core religi ...[text shortened]... they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.
You drew similarities with the discrimination practiced by the KKK. Now unless you believe that I am justifying racial prejudice, I really fail to see the relevance. As I said, the state does have a legitimate right to, in exceptional circumstances, suspend religious freedom when it unjustifiably violates the rights of others. Because of the dangerous activities of the KKK, the virulence of their racial bigotry, I do not think that their religious rights would have any persuasive force. In the case of the Catholic Church, however, in which discrimination may simply be used to preserve their essential religious functions, I think you need to explain why the state should be allowed to suspend their religious freedom. You have not at all addressed this question.
Unless you agree to actually engage in proper debate, I don’t see much point in continuing. Imagine if I just retorted to you ‘I am sure that the Nazis felt they were justified when they required pro-Nazi priests and bishops’ or ‘This is no different to Russian soviets requiring Orthodox parishes to promote communism’ or drew comparisons with the Chinese government approving the appointment of bishops. But those sorts of comparisons would be callow and unhelpful.
I think you're sharp enough to understand that the point is that your assertion that "religious organizations" should have the "right" to practice discrimination in order to maintain their " "core religious ideals" is not valid.
No; I don’t see it. Religious rights are real. They are recognised under the UN charter of human rights. Most states in fact allow exemptions for religious organisations to discriminate to some extent. I am in fact unaware of any state which does not countenance any exemption. Could you name any? Clearly a number of legislatures, even the UK, do not agree.
It's no more valid for the RCC than it its for the KKK. I think you recognize that it's not valid for the KKK (and therefore the RCC), but to avoid having to admit it you chose to throw a little hissy fit instead. If "religious organizations" or members thereof choose to engage in secular public services such as adoption, then they must set aside their bigoted and prejudicial views while doing so. If they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.
Let’s be clear though. The KKK is not really a religious organisation at all. It does not maintain churches and it does not have any of the same services as the Catholic Church. I am unaware of any specific ‘employment’ in the KKK. The parallels are not immediately obvious to me. Again, it just seems like ideological bullying. Would you also require Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services or Catholic ministers to witness same-sex marriages? At what point do you admit the right of religious organisations?
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOnce again, I have said nothing about racism. YOU are the one who insists on bringing it up. Seems like all you can do is create straw men and attack them. Hopefully a day will come where bigotry no longer exists in this world whatever the source. Evidently you believe that if the bigotry is based on "core religious ideals", it is "justified", unless of course the bigotry is not in line with your beliefs as with the KKK. Your hypocrisy is truly remarkable.
[b]Oh, please. I said nothing about "racism" nor that you contend that "all forms of discrimination are justifiable". You've created and attacked straw men.
You drew similarities with the discrimination practiced by the KKK. Now unless you believe that I am justifying racial prejudice, I really fail to see the relevance. As I said, the state does hav ...[text shortened]... sex marriages? At what point do you admit the right of religious organisations?[/b]
Once again, "If 'religious organizations' or members thereof choose to engage in secular public services such as adoption, then they must set aside their bigoted and prejudicial views while doing so. If they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.". Not sure what you can't understand about this. Maybe if you try to explain where you're getting hung up, I'll be able to help you through it.