Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

[Greatest I am]

Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

The Gay marriage issue may be instrumental in the destruction of Church and Mosque discrimination, without just cause, against certain sub groups within our greater society.

Notably, Gays, women, slaves and sexual practices.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/h...ous-right-to-discriminate-20110212-1areb.html

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/news/national/fury_over_same_sex_unions_in_church_1_3087271

The tradition of the Abrahamic cults and sects has been to be anti Gay, anti the equality of women, not emancipating slaves and telling consenting adults how to handle themselves in sexual matters.

Gays are said to be abominations.
Men are told to never allow a woman to have authority over them.
Women are told to submit to their male masters.
Run away slaves are told to return to their masters and the masters are told just how to beat their slaves. Nowhere in Christianity or Islam is there instructions to emancipate or free slaves.

In our secular worlds, do Christianity and Islam have the right to promote these discriminations that exceed and go directly against the humanistic thinking that the rest of the secular world seem to be going in?

Our Governments create laws and every law is permission and indeed compulsion to discriminate against certain sub groups within our societies. These laws can be questioned and repealed if society deems them against human rights and we see this happening in an ongoing basis and notably of late, we have recognized the inappropriateness of discriminating against Gays and others for reasons of sexual orientation and divorce. Religion forbids a change in dogma and frown against any questioning.

Should Government put a stop to these groups who are in effect usurping the power of the state and your vote?

We are in effect being lead by religion and not the state or Government we vote for.
Just who is the boss and why is my vote and yours being nullified by Religion and their ultra conservative agenda?

Churches and Mosques are discriminating against those that society has found innocent of wrongdoing.
Should Religions be told and or forced to stop doing so?
Have Religions crossed the line of separation of Church and State?

------------------------------------------------------

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

You or some family member may be next on a Religious hit list my friend.
Think about it.

Regards
DL

 

[siphra]

In the United States, because of the way the constitution is written, I would say that Yes a Religious organization has to be allowed to discriminate.

Of course, my counter question would be, what sort of a twit would want to work in a place where they know they are going to be thought of as a 'bad person' or worse? They most likely are choosing the place for one of two reasons, 1: They really need the job, understand that they will be viewed that way, and just don't care. or 2: They are trying to start trouble, and make a point.

The first type of person will deal with it for years, maybe eventually reaching a breaking point. The second will seek out legal protections, violating the religious groups rights.

As daft as it is, yes, religious groups should be allowed to discriminate. (In the long run, it will probably hurt them, which isn't neccesarily a bad thing.)


Now to address each question you asked:

Should Government put a stop to these groups who are in effect usurping the power of the state and your vote?

When people thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote, was it right to keep it that way? People can decide for public laws, and public entities what 'rights' are protected by the government. But should they have the right to decide that for private groups that are established for common practices?

We, (I HOPE!) agree that racism is stupidity, what if : In order to end racism, it is decided that ALL relationships have to be inter-racial? This is an extreme form of what your asking, I realize. I am taking it to a stupid extreme to ask you : Where is the line? Where do you decide that government has gone way too far interfering in the lives of the people.
Mandating what large groups are allowed to promote?
Mandating what small groups are allowed to say?
Mandating what individuals can do?

No ones vote is being usurped by a religious group, at least not here in the States. Religious groups have the right to preach as they will. They are groups of people with faith. NOW: For things like gay rights (which I support) in essence a right is nothing more than a privilege that has been protected by law. The question becomes (And I love this question.) Which is right, the people's right to vote, or those things that are actually correct?

I ask this because based on your text, I can see a brewing hypocracy. You would with one hand accuse the vote of being usurped by people with an agenda, and on the other hand deny the right the vote to be enforced if it disagrees with your morality. Take california for example, where the religious managed to vote down gay marriage (Dumb!). The people VOTED to not support it. Thier voices were heard, do you support that the government listened to the majority there and did what was 'poltically' right? Morally it was dumb, very very dumb, however; the vote was carried out.

So which is it? Support what the voters said, or your morals?

You obviously think that anyone who disagrees with you should be silenced, I disagree with that.
Open discussion, bigotry, hatred, and love ; without OPEN senses of these, no true dialogue can happen, and no true growth for society.
We need Jackasses to remind us of who we are, what we really treasure. And to that end, we need bigots to point to and say 'I'm better than that person.'
Remember, when you want to silence the opposition, as your quote says : You may be the next one silenced.

 

[Greatest I am]

In the United States, because of the way the constitution is written, I would say that Yes a Religious organization has to be allowed to discriminate.

Why?
What makes it any different than any other employer as far as the law should be concerned?

Of course, my counter question would be, what sort of a twit would want to work in a place where they know they are going to be thought of as a 'bad person' or worse? They most likely are choosing the place for one of two reasons, 1: They really need the job, understand that they will be viewed that way, and just don't care. or 2: They are trying to start trouble, and make a point.

The reason is irrelevant. It may be the only employer in town.
Your use of the work twit says a lot more about you than him.

The first type of person will deal with it for years, maybe eventually reaching a breaking point. The second will seek out legal protections, violating the religious groups rights.

LOL.
Seeking legal protection is violates a groups right to break the law.
A real bright statement.

As daft as it is, yes, religious groups should be allowed to discriminate. (In the long run, it will probably hurt them, which isn't neccesarily a bad thing.)

As illegal as it is they should be allowed to give hardship to citizens who do not deserve it and have not earned it. Quite the view pal.

Now to address each question you asked:



When people thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote, was it right to keep it that way?

Not according to the general public or the law would not have been repealed.

People can decide for public laws, and public entities what 'rights' are protected by the government. But should they have the right to decide that for private groups that are established for common practices?

Absolutely. That is democrasy. One law of the land. Not ten sets.

We, (I HOPE!) agree that racism is stupidity, what if : In order to end racism, it is decided that ALL relationships have to be inter-racial? This is an extreme form of what your asking,

No.

I realize. I am taking it to a stupid extreme to ask you : Where is the line?

You are correct. It was a stupid analogy.

Where do you decide that government has gone way too far interfering in the lives of the people.

Enforcing the law is hardly undue interference.

Mandating what large groups are allowed to promote?

McCartyism set a standard.

Mandating what small groups are allowed to say?

Anti-Semitism and other designated hate crimes are in place even as I realize that the U S is rather backwards as compared to some other countries.

Mandating what individuals can do?

Individuuals or corperations should be subject to the same law.

No ones vote is being usurped by a religious group, at least not here in the States.

I am not an American and know that Obama repealed Bushes stem cell research law. Obama called it a good political decision to reverse a poor religious one. Open your eyes.

Religious groups have the right to preach as they will. They are groups of people with faith.

Faith with no brains mostly.

NOW: For things like gay rights (which I support) in essence a right is nothing more than a privilege that has been protected by law. The question becomes (And I love this question.) Which is right, the people's right to vote, or those things that are actually correct?

You love what makes no sense?

I ask this because based on your text, I can see a brewing hypocracy. You would with one hand accuse the vote of being usurped by people with an agenda, and on the other hand deny the right the vote to be enforced if it disagrees with your morality.

This, like your last above I can make no sense of.
I do not deny any vote.

Take california for example, where the religious managed to vote down gay marriage (Dumb!). The people VOTED to not support it. Thier voices were heard, do you support that the government listened to the majority there and did what was 'poltically' right? Morally it was dumb, very very dumb, however; the vote was carried out.

I would not say that it was politically right. I would say that it was politically expediant for a safe reelection by one who did not care to do the right thing.
You might note that the courts are presently saying that it was unconstitutional and the case is being flipped back and forth between the Federal and State courts. They both recognize the tyranny of the majority and the law will be thrown out. Watch.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory...-prop-8-case-to-california-supreme-court.aspx

So which is it? Support what the voters said, or your morals?

See above.

You obviously think that anyone who disagrees with you should be silenced, I disagree with that.

You are obviously wrong.

Open discussion, bigotry, hatred, and love ; without OPEN senses of these, no true dialogue can happen, and no true growth for society.
We need Jackasses to remind us of who we are, what we really treasure. And to that end, we need bigots to point to and say 'I'm better than that person.'
Remember, when you want to silence the opposition, as your quote says : You may be the next one silenced.

Again. If the McCarthy experience is to set a standard, dialog can happen without promoting hate. Generally speaking, hate is allowed when the target is clearly evil. I E, I could spend all day on a corner spewing hate against murderers and pedophiles. They clearly create victims.

If on the other hand, if I was like your---

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory...-prop-8-case-to-california-supreme-court.aspx

Then, like them, I would expect that the law would restrict my activities and justly so. What they do is make a mockery of the laws of free speech and are spewing hate. That is not what the law was written to protect.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

Free speech laws in the US were written especially to protect the kinds of speech people find offensive. The problem with McCarthy was he was an elected official acting as a representative of the government. There are still people who feel the same way about commies, that is their right.

 

[Saquist]

Sounds like a thread of oppression pretending to fight oppression.
Another sad human pretense.

 

[GospelJohn]

The separation of church and state is one of the biggest reasons for the success of the USA. It makes our laws dynamic so they keep up with the changing culture and mind of society. If we were religious based, we'd never change any of our "old ways." And our entire government would be limited to the parameters established by theologians who decide what God thinks is right.

The scariest part is when I read of the doom and gloom we are destined for (by some people) and think that our government would ever decide to facilitate the coming of God's retribution against the earth by creating a final conflict as they say the Bible predicts. Feeling that God is urging us to do violence (and worse) to bring about His glory is an oxymoron, but one I feel is realistic if churches and government do not remain separated in all respects.

If some church starts acting like a government (political agendas and organizing votes, etc.), then they can pay taxes like every other business with a secular agenda.

 

[Lori_7]

first of all, you're cherry picking three relatively minute aspects out of a much larger 2000 year old book that many religious institutions use as doctrine, and many people have found truth in, like the truth that men do rule the world for the most part, and that everyone is enslaved, and that there are so many abominations going on in the world it's hard to know just where to start.

secondly, in the US, hate crimes are illegal, assault and harassment are illegal, discrimination in the workplace is illegal, and slavery is illegal, regardless of what religion you prescribe to.

so what do you want to do? you preach about "doing something". do you want to burn all of the copies of the bible in existence? bomb the religious institutions that use it as a doctrine?

why don't you bust in on some religious service and just start raising hell? put in on youtube.

and thirdly, if you hadn't chosen to focus on these few small aspects of the bible in this way, you would know that the overall and over-riding message in that book is complete freedom.

the ironic thing is, that religious people who cherry pick these particular aspects of the bible, just like you do and with the same sentiment as you have, are the ones to really be afraid of.

if fear is your thing.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

The separation of church and state is one of the biggest reasons for the success of the USA. .

You think that your laws do not come from the Church?.


Peace.

 

[siphra]

Again. If the McCarthy experience is to set a standard, dialog can happen without promoting hate. Generally speaking, hate is allowed when the target is clearly evil. I E, I could spend all day on a corner spewing hate against murderers and pedophiles. They clearly create victims.

If on the other hand, if I was like your---

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory...-prop-8-case-to-california-supreme-court.aspx

Then, like them, I would expect that the law would restrict my activities and justly so. What they do is make a mockery of the laws of free speech and are spewing hate. That is not what the law was written to protect.

Regards
DL

Here is the answer to your first question:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Debate for the US ends, in other nations the laws aren't so permissive.

IF the religion says that they have to shover rubber ducks up each others rears twice a month, thats it. We can not stop them. Now obviously we have to draw lines somewhere, we can't have human sacrifice going on... however there is a big difference between killing and employment or speech.

2: Say what you like, if you put yourself in a hostile environment instead of oh say, moving, you are certainly a twit.

3: Yes it violates the rights. I am sorry but IF I wanted to go to an all mens school, I can't because some woman can force her way in, that violates MY rights to not be in an all mens school. You see its really easy for you hypocrites to 'protect' the rights of one group, while trampling those of another. 'Her rights must be protected'. Love it.

4: Thats right, its now a crime in the US to SAY things during the commission of a crime. Thats your definition of a hate crime: "he said nigger, when he hit me!" And you think this is a good thing? Yes lets take away the rights of groups we don't like. Thats a GREAT policy right there.

5: With reference to Obamas actions and quotes, when it comes to secular law, dealing with the public sectors of life, yes. When it is a group of people meeting for common purpose, NO.

6: I love what: Read the statement again, it makes perfect sense. The Question I love is : Which is right, representative government, or gay rights? (when they conflict as in california.)

7: NO the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Democratic Republic, and there is a difference. I will thank you to keep Democracy in europe where people like Hitler may be elected.

8: Did you actually say No, that forcing relationships to be inter-racial isn't an extreme? or Are you trying to claim that it's not the extreme end of equality laws? In either case sir, (or ma'am) you are mistaken.

9: I think (not sure) we agree that if something is 'Politically' right , its probably morally wrong. (right in this sense meaning that it helps get reelected)

10: Actually I am right, I have no doubt people like you would love to see groups silenced that disagree with you. Here in the US the people who support the same things you do, VOCALLY support shutting down thier opposition. They want laws passed such that Limbaugh, Beck, et. al. get pulled off the air, as they disagree with and give opposing points of view.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Here is the answer to ALL your rebuttles:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Debate for the US ends, in other nations the laws aren't so permissive.

IF the religion says that they have to shover rubber ducks up each others rears twice a month, thats it. We can not stop them. Now obviously we have to draw lines somewhere, we can't have human sacrifice going on... however there is a big difference between killing and employment or speech.

Ok you tie him up and bring him to the Altar, i'll sharpen the knife.


Peace and jokes

 

[GeoffP]

Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

Nope. But convention allows it to do so, nonetheless.

Maybe it would help if less attention were paid to certain dusty and far-flung points of the Bible (I trust the thumpers watch no TV on the Sabbath, for example, among numerous other details) and more on the central message. It's not a tricky one, really.

 

[Yazata]

Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

I expect that the answer varies a great deal depending on what country we are talking about.

In the United States (where I live) the US Constitution and many subsequent Supreme Court decisions largely protect the rights of religious organizations to practice their religion as they choose, free of government interference. The flip-side of that is that the secular government can't do anything that favors any particular denomination over others or that favors religion over irreligion. The result is to guarantee both religious liberty and the fundamental secular nature of our republic.

In practice though, it can become more complicated than that. The state can intervene in regulating religious practices if those practices are a clear danger to the community. Radical Islamists can't claim immunity from the FBI by arguing that strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded transit stations is an act of religion. And there are other issues regarding what is and isn't a legitimate practice of religion. A church can't just start up an otherwise secular business, let's say Holy Airlines, and then claim immunity from the FAA's aviation safety requirements by insisting that their airliners take passengers closer to God.

So I suppose that if the government was aggressive enough, it could probably go to court and try to challenge the internal activities of a church on the grounds either that those activities are clear and present dangers to the community, or that they aren't really religious practices. Frankly, I don't think that either of those arguments would be likely to prevail here in the US against churches that don't morally approve of gays or against churches that won't ordain women.

I have some knowledge a rather different but related aspect of these issues. It seems that in the United States, state courts have repeatedly ruled that religious education is an integral part of religious practice. That in turn means that religious seminaries and similar institutions of religious higher education that train people for religious vocations and educate lay members of religious groups in thoe group's beliefs and doctrines, are exempt from just about all regulation by the 50 states. (In the US, regulating education is a state responsibility.) These are termed religious exemptions in the lingo and they mean that higher education institutions are exempt from having to conform to any government mandated educational standards, provided that they restrict themselves to teaching religious subjects and nothing more.

Just do a Google search for internet religious seminaries and you will find hundreds upon hundreds of blatant degree mills, all offering to sell you a cool-sounding doctorate, and often an ordination in some imaginary church to go along with it. It's all perfectly legal, albeit extremely unethical. To be fair, it's rarely legitimate churches that are doing that. That particular scam is the province of internet con-men. Legitimate religious seminaries are usually scrupulous about maintaining all the expected accreditations.

In practice, the scope of these state religious exemptions is constantly being tested and challenged and is an active area of litigation. For example, many of these religious degree-mills insist that spiritual healing and especially pastoral counseling are an integral part of the practice of religion. So they feature impressive websites full of photos of people wearing white coats in clinical settings. These mills offer their customers (er sorry, students) academically worthless quickie doctorates in "mind-body medicine" or "clinical pastoral psychology", along with phony ordinations in non-existent churches. Everyone's assured that it will be perfectly legal for them to set out their shingles and advertise themselves in the phone-book as healthcare professionals, all without having to worry the least bit about annoying little things like not having medical or psychological licenses.

 

[Greatest I am]

Free speech laws in the US were written especially to protect the kinds of speech people find offensive. The problem with McCarthy was he was an elected official acting as a representative of the government. There are still people who feel the same way about commies, that is their right.

In terms of H R as shown in the first link they are breaking the law of the land.

Go ahead and support such. I will not.

As to the church and Gays directly--------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Sounds like a thread of oppression pretending to fight oppression.
Another sad human pretense.

Fight fire with fire.

Sure beats sitting on my hands like some.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The separation of church and state is one of the biggest reasons for the success of the USA. It makes our laws dynamic so they keep up with the changing culture and mind of society. If we were religious based, we'd never change any of our "old ways." And our entire government would be limited to the parameters established by theologians who decide what God thinks is right.

The scariest part is when I read of the doom and gloom we are destined for (by some people) and think that our government would ever decide to facilitate the coming of God's retribution against the earth by creating a final conflict as they say the Bible predicts. Feeling that God is urging us to do violence (and worse) to bring about His glory is an oxymoron, but one I feel is realistic if churches and government do not remain separated in all respects.

If some church starts acting like a government (political agendas and organizing votes, etc.), then they can pay taxes like every other business with a secular agenda.

Well said.

You might like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIoiSaXYxfU

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

first of all, you're cherry picking three relatively minute aspects out of a much larger 2000 year old book that many religious institutions use as doctrine, and many people have found truth in, like the truth that men do rule the world for the most part, and that everyone is enslaved, and that there are so many abominations going on in the world it's hard to know just where to start.

secondly, in the US, hate crimes are illegal, assault and harassment are illegal, discrimination in the workplace is illegal, and slavery is illegal, regardless of what religion you prescribe to.

so what do you want to do? you preach about "doing something". do you want to burn all of the copies of the bible in existence? bomb the religious institutions that use it as a doctrine?

why don't you bust in on some religious service and just start raising hell? put in on youtube.

and thirdly, if you hadn't chosen to focus on these few small aspects of the bible in this way, you would know that the overall and over-riding message in that book is complete freedom.

the ironic thing is, that religious people who cherry pick these particular aspects of the bible, just like you do and with the same sentiment as you have, are the ones to really be afraid of.

if fear is your thing.

As with other things we have discussed. You are out to lunch.

Read that first link again in terms of the church promoting freedom. You will see that your church has more with control of individuals than freedom.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You think that your laws do not come from the Church?.


Peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

You think that your laws do not come from the Church?.


Peace.

Absolutely they don't.

In terms of H R as shown in the first link they are breaking the law of the land.

Go ahead and support such. I will not.

As to the church and Gays directly--------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Regards
DL

What's H R? Of course I will support religious freedom, because it also means freedom for atheism.

I know the attitude of some churches is morally abhorrent to me, but that's their problem, not mine.

 

[Greatest I am]

Siphra

Thanks for the mish mash of thoughts. I did pull a couple out of the B S.

Where is it written in your law that churches can ignore the H R rules of discrimination?

As to church free speech, we both know that if they preached anti-Semitism, the law would be all over them. To me, their hate speech against Gays is just the next step in government making churches into responsible citizens instead of bigoted ass holes.

“ 2: Say what you like, if you put yourself in a hostile environment instead of oh say, moving, you are certainly a twit.”

For evil to grow all good people need is to move away from it. For you to suggest they do says much about you and it also says that those you would have move are more socially conscious than yourself and want to improve their society.

I guess you would have advised Rosa Parks to move elsewhere so that segregation could continue in the states.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Nope. But convention allows it to do so, nonetheless.

Maybe it would help if less attention were paid to certain dusty and far-flung points of the Bible (I trust the thumpers watch no TV on the Sabbath, for example, among numerous other details) and more on the central message. It's not a tricky one, really.

It is not convention that allows it so much as a government with it's head up churches ass.

It is changing though slowly. Have you heard all the crying that the religious are doing about so called liberal politicians. Liberal politicians to them of course means those politicians who have taken their heads out of God's ass and noticed that the sky is blue and not brown.
The air is rather fresh as well.

Regards
DL