the right to be discrimanatory

2 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Well the pope believes that the sexual orientation bill impinged on the rights of catholic organisations to not allow gay couples to foster and adopt,and has spoken out about the seculisation of british life
The Secular society has called on gay rights organisations to protest at his visit in september,and a few comments i have read seem to hark bask to the days of the test laws,insisting the pope should not comment on britain at all.
So ahould he,are christians a persecuted minority and should the government weight the rights of one minority group more heavily than another?
oh and after you sorted that out, is there a place for religion in politics?

No, it holds back progress, i don't think there is place for religion in society.
why should the church be any different to any other employer in this country??

2 Feb 2010

The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

2 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

Just because they have done it for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right. There is no reason as to why any religious organisation should be exempt from the laws of the country it finds itself in.
I would say that to muslim, catholic, christian, jew or anyone else who believes in fairytales

2 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

Just because they have done it for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right. There is no reason as to why any religious organisation should be exempt from the laws of the country it finds itself in.
I would say that to muslim, catholic, christian, jew or anyone else who believes in fairytales
So would you argue that the rights of groups who believe in fairy tales matter less than the rights of people who are in same sex relationships,?
There are many exemptions to employment law,for example womens refuges are allowed to advertise for female workers only,
i'm sure thats for good reasons, not because 'god' says its evil and that you will burn in hell for doing it etc...
i believe that everyone should have the same rights, the argument here is that religion should have different rights from the majority of employers in this country for no good reason, the only reason they want different rules for themselves is because an invisible man in the sky has told them that being gay is wrong.
religious groups should have no political power what so ever, they should have the right to believe and worship what they like, however, having the power to influence laws or government is insane

2 Feb 2010

Well I still believe it is the churches fundamental RIGHT to be able to have what it thinks is right.
Do people then think the ten commandments are bollox as well? If not then why not? It is how people are " supposed " to behave ( though the adultery one does not apply to JT wink

).
The churches base their beliefs on age old values. Why is that so wrong?
It makes me laugh that the church are being accused of interfering, yet others want to do the very same with the churches beliefs.
As I say I ain't religious but they have that right, and over the gay couples adopting it would be against the faith of the Catholics and the Muslim faiths....now how many people does that represent in the world?

2 Feb 2010

I thought the pope was interested in recruiting the clergy who want to leave the Anglican church. Which they are doing because they don't agree with women and gays coming into the fold. His comments on a country which has developed after disconnecting with the catholic church are fairly predictable.
But religion plays an important part in the lives of many people throughout the world.
in a way that we in the uk haven't seen for many a year.
But if the title of the thread is to be discussed then I think people have lost the ability to use discrimination where its of necessity. If it does come its often too late.

2 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Well I still believe it is the churches fundamental RIGHT to be able to have what it thinks is right.
Do people then think the ten commandments are bollox as well? If not then why not? It is how people are " supposed " to behave ( though the adultery one does not apply to JT ).
The churches base their beliefs on age old values. Why is that so wrong?
It makes me laugh that the church are being accused of interfering, yet others want to do the very same with the churches beliefs.
As I say I ain't religious but they have that right, and over the gay couples adopting it would be against the faith of the Catholics and the Muslim faiths....now how many people does that represent in the world?

The 10 commandments...
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Punishment. Genocide
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Punishment. Genocide
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Punishment. Capital punishment
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Punishment. Capital punishment
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: Punishment. Capital punishment
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Punishment. Capital punishment
7. Thou shalt not kill. Punishment. Capital punishment in some cases
8. Thou shalt not steal. Punishment. Excessive fines or slavery
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Punishment. Despisement and scorn
10. Thou shalt not covet . . . Punishment. Despisement and scorn
I do not get my morality from the bible, i don't go into tesco on a sunday morning and kill everyone who works there.
If peoples idea of how to behave comes from the 10 commandments you would be a fucked up individual.
**EDIT** the fucked up individual comment isn't an attack or dig at anyone in particular

2 Feb 2010

Every organisation has the option to to discriminate in any way they feel right,just as the Government has the option to withdraw funding and the judiciary the option to prosecute...at their discrimination

2 Feb 2010

Quote by Ms_Whips
Well I still believe it is the churches fundamental RIGHT to be able to have what it thinks is right.
Do people then think the ten commandments are bollox as well? If not then why not? It is how people are " supposed " to behave ( though the adultery one does not apply to JT ).

The churches base their beliefs on age old values. Why is that so wrong?
It makes me laugh that the church are being accused of interfering, yet others want to do the very same with the churches beliefs.
As I say I ain't religious but they have that right, and over the gay couples adopting it would be against the faith of the Catholics and the Muslim faiths....now how many people does that represent in the world?quote]
i really don't undrstand this post kenty. are you telling me that some bloke who believes in something i don't should be able to tell me how to live my life which is against my rights to choose? i'm curious if you are because you have just been banging on about smokers rights over the rights of others. if he says you have to stop smoking you will listen to that? or would that be different coz it's about your rights then?
the ten commandments are virtually impossible to stick to apart from the don't kill and lovthy so and so. everyone coverts something. these 10 things are not what most people live their lives by. we live by modern law.
it's not wrong as such but we don't live in the dark ages anymore. we have the right to choose!
i don't have a problem with their beliefs. i have a problem with them shoving it down my throat and trying to tell evryone who doesn't believe what they should do.
do you have any idea how many gay catholic and muslim people there are? faith does not stop or change sexuality. nore does it make you a better person than anyone else. it should also give you no better rights over anyone else.
whips

Very pretty colours..ya bored or something? lol

Of course they should not be able to tell you what to do.
IF you was a practicing Catholic then you would abide by their beliefs....IF you was Muslim you would abide by their faith.
As we are obviously not religious their beliefs do not affect us, but they do affect the zillions of people who follow that faith.
I have my own views on gay couple adoption but does not make me right or wrong. I am not trying to persuade anyone but....the church do not advocate homosexuality nor does the Muslim faith.
Because it happens to fall into line with some peoples thinking, does not mean the church has to bend over backwards to accommodate.
I really do not give a flying monkeys what the church think or do but....here is the but...they have the right to preach to their followers the rights and the views of the Catholic church. IF you are a true Catholic you will already have those views instilled into your faith.

2 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i really don't undrstand this post kenty. are you telling me that some bloke who believes in something i don't should be able to tell me how to live my life which is against my rights to choose? i'm curious if you are because you have just been banging on about smokers rights over the rights of others. if he says you have to stop smoking you will listen to that? or would that be different coz it's about your rights then?
you see whips i think this hits the center of the issue ,we are all eager to defend "our " rights and protect them from attack ,but surely there has to be a fundemental rights ,which apply to all,if use of human rights legislation means some groups feel there rights are not being protected then is it not flawed,
Or do we accept a situation in which some groups rights matter more to us then others?
A dangerous position in my opinion,

I believe they are hugely flawed, they almost always protect the minority at the existence of the majority.
Bias is bound also to creep into things, just as they have here in the forum, (My human rights are more important than yours) maybe not deliberate, but the people writing them are human.
One biased which springs to mind is the banning of fox hunting due to its cruelness, yet something, in my opinion, equally as cruel is the method of slaughter for Kosher and Halal meet. Now both are cruel but only one is against the law. Is that justifiable? Before some one mentions that fox hunting is done for enjoyment and eating is done for survival, wrong Meat eating is done because we enjoy it and not for survival as may vegetarians are living proof. Also there are very good humane ways to kill our food.

2 Feb 2010

Just to clarify, I thought the current debate (or what the Pope is narked about) is the fact that, as an employer, the Catholic Church should not - under British equality legislastion - bar gay and lesbian people from holding office within its organisation or affiliated bodies?
dunno

I could be way off the mark - or maybe I've just missed the fostering link.

2 Feb 2010

Quote by noladreams
Just to clarify, I thought the current debate (or what the Pope is narked about) is the fact that, as an employer, the Catholic Church should not - under British equality legislastion - bar gay and lesbian people from holding office within its organisation or affiliated bodies?
I could be way off the mark - or maybe I've just missed the fostering link.

thats what i thought lol

3 Feb 2010

Religion and law should be kept seperate.

3 Feb 2010

Quote by browning
Religion and law should be kept seperate.

Difficult as are laws are based around religious philosophies.

3 Feb 2010

Quote by Ms_Whips
kaz, for me i think that if people are allowed to adopt children that should be just it. i don't give a stuff whether people are same sex couples, over weight, man and wife, or whatever else. if that couple meet what is needed to foster/adopt a child from a tick list what the hell does it matter? they are all people who could give a child a home.
so i have two people to choose from to work as a clerk in the catholic church, both are exactly the same on merits but i'm going to employ A because B is gay. well for me again that is just wrong. of course the church has the right to choose, but then they shouldn't whinge if they can't stick to the laws of the country they practice in. go buy an island, set up practice and live by whatever laws you want, but in this country live by the ones set up by it.
kent, your argment about living by your faith is flawed. to say that you truely have to be totally devout to truely be any faith is crap. alot of people on here say they are one religion or another and they are here breaking their church's rules. doesn't make them any less devout. if you really think that there are no gay muslims or catholics you are very misguilded! i know three muslim men who are gay, i went to school with one. he's now married to a woman and lives by his faith as far as probably 99% of the people in his life know. i know he has sex with men. not everything is easily put into the box of 'if you live by this you will do that'. people may appear to, but unless you are told differently you can't say for sure.
whips

Oh well....crap it is then.:jagsatwork:
Well in MY opinion IF a Muslim that you know is gay, what a laugh when you say " lives by his faith as far as probably 99% ". Well how hypocritical is that?
It makes me chuckle when people use their faith when it suits, and then dismiss things they do not like. One of the major factors in the Muslim faith is regard to gays. Now IF he is gay then I would say he is certainly not living by his faith 99%.
Muslims have a different view of their faith and the Koran IS the be all and end all for many, where Catholics change the goal posts as often as they deem it ok to do so.
Which just goes to prove to me that not only are clergy or priests hypocrites, but from your example above, so are the very people who say they live their lives by their faith.
I bet your mate does not tell anyone from his faith about his extra marital meets with guys. Check the current Eastenders story that is going on at the moment, with regard to what Muslims feel about gay relationships.
For me I do not give a monkeys to be honest, it is just the hypocrisy of it all.

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Ms_Whips
kaz, for me i think that if people are allowed to adopt children that should be just it. i don't give a stuff whether people are same sex couples, over weight, man and wife, or whatever else. if that couple meet what is needed to foster/adopt a child from a tick list what the hell does it matter? they are all people who could give a child a home.
so i have two people to choose from to work as a clerk in the catholic church, both are exactly the same on merits but i'm going to employ A because B is gay. well for me again that is just wrong. of course the church has the right to choose, but then they shouldn't whinge if they can't stick to the laws of the country they practice in. go buy an island, set up practice and live by whatever laws you want, but in this country live by the ones set up by it.
kent, your argment about living by your faith is flawed. to say that you truely have to be totally devout to truely be any faith is crap. alot of people on here say they are one religion or another and they are here breaking their church's rules. doesn't make them any less devout. if you really think that there are no gay muslims or catholics you are very misguilded! i know three muslim men who are gay, i went to school with one. he's now married to a woman and lives by his faith as far as probably 99% of the people in his life know. i know he has sex with men. not everything is easily put into the box of 'if you live by this you will do that'. people may appear to, but unless you are told differently you can't say for sure.
whips

Oh well....crap it is then.:jagsatwork:
Well in MY opinion IF a Muslim that you know is gay, what a laugh when you say " lives by his faith as far as probably 99% ". Well how hypocritical is that?
It makes me chuckle when people use their faith when it suits, and then dismiss things they do not like. One of the major factors in the Muslim faith is regard to gays. Now IF he is gay then I would say he is certainly not living by his faith 99%.
Muslims have a different view of their faith and the Koran IS the be all and end all for many, where Catholics change the goal posts as often as they deem it ok to do so.
Which just goes to prove to me that not only are clergy or priests hypocrites, but from your example above, so are the very people who say they live their lives by their faith.
I bet your mate does not tell anyone from his faith about his extra marital meets with guys. Check the current Eastenders story that is going on at the moment, with regard to what Muslims feel about gay relationships.
For me I do not give a monkeys to be honest, it is just the hypocrisy of it all.
gosh kenty, oh to live in your life where everything is black and white.
you have no right to pass any judgemet on my friend. i said '99% of the people in his life' not 99% of the time. he lives by his faith as much as he can so that he doesn't disappoint and shame the people around him because of his faith and culture. i don't agree that he has sex behind his wife's back, but i agree less that he is forced to lie about who he really is and so is married to a woman in the first place. you forget that alot of muslims are brought up in this country where the view on being gay is far more open. how dare you say anything against a person who has to live a lie due to faith while you have the freedom to do what you like. sexuality is not a choice as you well know. how torn do you think some of these people are? i don't need to watch eastenders to know what it's like for him because he's spoken to me about it since we were at school. hypocrisy it maybe on his part, but the restrictions of faith set up by homophobic men is far worse in my opinion.
another thing, that IF is there and capitalised why? because reading it looks to me like you are questioning whether my friend is or not. i don't like that insinuation.
whips
Woooo chill Whips. wink

I am not passing judgement on anyone, it was you that said he lived his life by his faith 99% of the time....homosexuality and adultery are not part of his faith, therefore he does not live his life 99% by that faith. I am not bothered what anyone does as long as it is not harmful to others.
I do not think he is " forced " to do anything, it is HE that chooses to live that lie, we are in Britain...not in Saudi Arabia. He like a lot of people choose to have their cake and eat it, no problem there just don't get caught.
He may well have spoken to you about it but he is an individual, the Eastenders story line has probably been well researched, for they must get that right or face a huge backlash.
The restrictions you mentioned have been part of the Muslim faith since it was created, so not a man made thing over a few years, and remember also that the Koran is never questioned amongst Muslims who follow that faith.
I never insinuated anything other than the 99% part of your comment.
I am not bothered how he leads his life, the only point I was trying to make is forget that we live in Britain, Muslims follow our laws and their morals according to the Koran.
Now lets hug and make up. passionkiss

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Ms_Whips
lives by his faith as far as probably 99% of the people in his life know.
whips

fgs kenty will you please read this out loud 3 times and then work out the difference between what it says and what you want it to say

4 Feb 2010

Most are valid points, however The Pope does have something of a dilemna - if the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is wrong, it's their choice.... for sure.
If they say "And we will not therefore employ gay priests", well again, that is cheir choice, after all, it IS 'their' religion.
So, now they have rules and live by those rules.
Simple.
Now a government says, OK, but you can't employ those rules in this country, it's discriminatory.
Yes, it is, that's the whole point, because if they did NOT discriminate, then they have (by default) fouled their religions basis (well.... part of it anyway).
Therefore..... (logical progression), if the UK says that the Catholic Church cannot follow this discriminatory policy, they are also (by default) discriminating against the fundamental beliefs of that religion ...... thin ice I think !
And..... isn't religious discrimination the worst kind ?
It starts wars ....

4 Feb 2010

Remind me who the minority is ?
:P

4 Feb 2010

Quote by Ms_Whips
lives by his faith as far as probably 99% of the people in his life know.
whips

fgs kenty will you please read this out loud 3 times and then work out the difference between what it says and what you want it to say
thank you staggerlee, i was beginning to think i was going mad there.
kenty, i can always agree to disagree wink

marriedman, speaking sence.
kaz, i think i've come to the conclusion that there can not be a 'no dicrimination' without discriminating against someone.
whips
On this instance we both can whips....

4 Feb 2010

As I can be a lazy bugger ( no pun intended ), can someone in the know tell me where exactly the Catholic faith say that they are against homosexuality?
I know the Catholic church have somewhat changed their stance on abortion, and if they can do that then can they not take a different stance on this issue also?

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

Just because they have done it for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right. There is no reason as to why any religious organisation should be exempt from the laws of the country it finds itself in.
I would say that to muslim, catholic, christian, jew or anyone else who believes in fairytales
So would you argue that the rights of groups who believe in fairy tales matter less than the rights of people who are in same sex relationships,?
There are many exemptions to employment law,for example womens refuges are allowed to advertise for female workers only,
Bit of a category error there Kaz.
The exemptions from the race relations and equalities laws identify a specific need; refuges for instance have to have in place a statement as to why a woman worker is required for a specific post. Usually it's because traumatized women are likely to be unable to work with a man, or because the worker in question is likely to be involved in providing personal services to women or children. Bluntly, when a women turns up on the door at three am with her eyes blacked in just the clothes she's standing up in she isn't going to want to find a guy like me offering her the spare camp bed and a pair of pyjamas.
The problem with the Catholic church (or the other branches that believe you need testicles to teach faith) wanting to discriminate against certain people is that there is no identifiable need. the fact that they believe there is is no different to my old boss telling me that bank managers had to be male because 'no-one will believe a woman knows about finance.'

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

Just because they have done it for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right. There is no reason as to why any religious organisation should be exempt from the laws of the country it finds itself in.
I would say that to muslim, catholic, christian, jew or anyone else who believes in fairytales
So would you argue that the rights of groups who believe in fairy tales matter less than the rights of people who are in same sex relationships,?
There are many exemptions to employment law,for example womens refuges are allowed to advertise for female workers only,
Bit of a category error there Kaz.
The exemptions from the race relations and equalities laws identify a specific need; refuges for instance have to have in place a statement as to why a woman worker is required for a specific post. Usually it's because traumatized women are likely to be unable to work with a man, or because the worker in question is likely to be involved in providing personal services to women or children. Bluntly, when a women turns up on the door at three am with her eyes blacked in just the clothes she's standing up in she isn't going to want to find a guy like me offering her the spare camp bed and a pair of pyjamas.
The problem with the Catholic church (or the other branches that believe you need testicles to teach faith) wanting to discriminate against certain people is that there is no identifiable need. the fact that they believe there is is no different to my old boss telling me that bank managers had to be male because 'no-one will believe a woman knows about finance.'
Away i think your wrong about their being "no identifiable need", there is none to you, but to catholics, or at least the law makers the need to follow the word as they see it is real and palpable,if you believe that the holy spirit can only work thru a male priest because he is a represntative of one of the 12 apostles,you therefore also believe that only a male can administer the sacrements
Now to those who dont follow theses particular fairy stories then yes it is just a particular kind of prejudice, but to those who do,it would be traumatising to GENUINLY believe they were dammed .
And so we return to the idea of protecting a minority even if wat they believe is hogwash
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<wanders off in a daze after disagreeing with away! lol

Not quite.
The state defines the employment relationship - it's part of the central role of the state. There's nothing to stop a congregation electing who they like to lead them, or a church appointing who they like to lead a congregation, but they can't do it by way of the employment relationship if they don't conform with the state's rules.
We're not really disagreeing, lol....

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The church....in this case the Catholic church, base their fundamental values on certain things. It has been their way for possibly hundreds of years.
They have their values with regard to homosexuality, and I for one do not see why they should change what they believe in. They have also somewhat changed their values on things like abortion, which I believe was a good thing but...it was still their decision to make.
Do we tell Muslim leaders not to talk about Britain as well? They also do not believe in anything to do with homosexality so do they fall under the same banner? Probably not as people would dare not, but the Pope seems fair game to some.
I am and have never been religious so have no agendas here, other than ther fact their religion does not advocate homesexuality...period. So why should they change?
The question " does religion have a place in politics " well.....I would say yes it can.

Just because they have done it for hundreds of years, doesn't make it right. There is no reason as to why any religious organisation should be exempt from the laws of the country it finds itself in.
I would say that to muslim, catholic, christian, jew or anyone else who believes in fairytales
So would you argue that the rights of groups who believe in fairy tales matter less than the rights of people who are in same sex relationships,?
There are many exemptions to employment law,for example womens refuges are allowed to advertise for female workers only,
Bit of a category error there Kaz.
The exemptions from the race relations and equalities laws identify a specific need; refuges for instance have to have in place a statement as to why a woman worker is required for a specific post. Usually it's because traumatized women are likely to be unable to work with a man, or because the worker in question is likely to be involved in providing personal services to women or children. Bluntly, when a women turns up on the door at three am with her eyes blacked in just the clothes she's standing up in she isn't going to want to find a guy like me offering her the spare camp bed and a pair of pyjamas.
The problem with the Catholic church (or the other branches that believe you need testicles to teach faith) wanting to discriminate against certain people is that there is no identifiable need. the fact that they believe there is is no different to my old boss telling me that bank managers had to be male because 'no-one will believe a woman knows about finance.'
Away i think your wrong about their being "no identifiable need", there is none to you, but to catholics, or at least the law makers the need to follow the word as they see it is real and palpable,if you believe that the holy spirit can only work thru a male priest because he is a represntative of one of the 12 apostles,you therefore also believe that only a male can administer the sacrements
Now to those who dont follow theses particular fairy stories then yes it is just a particular kind of prejudice, but to those who do,it would be traumatising to GENUINLY believe they were dammed .
And so we return to the idea of protecting a minority even if wat they believe is hogwash
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<wanders off in a daze after disagreeing with away! lol

Not quite.
The state defines the employment relationship - it's part of the central role of the state. There's nothing to stop a congregation electing who they like to lead them, or a church appointing who they like to lead a congregation, but they can't do it by way of the employment relationship if they don't conform with the state's rules.
We're not really disagreeing, lol....

5 Feb 2010

A factor that few people pick up on with any organised religion, is that the main faiths have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, yet the doctines are little changed if any. I do wonder if men like Jesus and Mohamed, great leaders in their time, came amongst us today, what they would say in solution to our current difficulties? They would probably give very helpful views, but they surely wouldn't be those laid down in either of the religions they founded all those years ago in a different part of the world.
Plim :sad:

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Plimboy
A factor that few people pick up on with any organised religion, is that the main faiths have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, yet the doctines are little changed if any. I do wonder if men like Jesus and Mohamed, great leaders in their time, came amongst us today, what they would say in solution to our current difficulties? They would probably give very helpful views, but they surely wouldn't be those laid down in either of the religions they founded all those years ago in a different part of the world.
Plim :sad:

I thought Jesus and Mohammed caused all the problems we have now.................

5 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Away, go on lets disagree,just for the fun of it! :twisted:
I see your point in relation to employment law,but if there are situations in which we believe it is ok to discriminate, then it could be argued it is wrong of the state to impose its morality on others ,allowing only some exemptions
Of course then you just end up in horrible moral relativism and eventually disappear up your own arse

It could be argued, but the whole point of the state is that it exists to discriminate. That's what it's for. So I argue for a secular state, to save us from the religious fruitbats, even though most of the religious people I know aren't fruitbats.

6 Feb 2010

i think some ideas in the more developed countries are going beyond their usefulness. if we shift over to allowing homosexuals complete freedom, and award animals similar rights, we will have no food to eat and a dying population.

6 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i think some ideas in the more developed countries are going beyond their usefulness. if we shift over to allowing homosexuals complete freedom, and award animals similar rights, we will have no food to eat and a dying population.

You`ve lost me here !!!! Care to explain a little better ? I`d hate to assume that you just said what I think you just said !!!
duncan I truly hope that was an exceptionally tongue in cheek statement or else i will have to actually respond and not in bimbette mode
oooh eeer sounds like your massing for an assault, let me re-engineer it.
If we had a society that was dedicated to homosexuality and didn't breed, who would reproduce? Would hetero sex be illegal then? etc.
If animals did not breed, how would we feed ourselves? vegetarianism? okay but not very tasty.

6 Feb 2010

Also I think that fostering is a big thing going on around the world and its only because more developed countries have the means that they can literally buy children wholesale. The most recent case being in Haiti where a bus load of kids were being taken away by some American religious group. With little or no provenance to their having those kids.
Many of the kids are fostered out from poorer countries. Their parents quite rightly want to know they are not being handed over to people who they see as undesirable to do the job of parenting. It may seem discriminatory to developed intelligence, but many of these poorer people have very strong simplistic values, which they live by. Which are discriminatory. They have to be, they need them to survive.
They also look to their religion and its figureheads to do something. This is why I think the Pope is delving into this area and interfering or intervening.