Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.
I guess it's a good thing that the Catholic Church has a ready supply of "fathers" for everyone, isn't it?If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.
How is it toxic? Rights of the individual are the foundation of all other rights. The freedoms of your church are meaningless if the people who make up that church are not free themselves.My point is, even though I disagree with the Archbishop's decision and would not set it forth as an example to my children, if I had them, about how to treat their neighbor, I deplore the rights talk that is brought to the table here because it is toxic.
I'd go even further, actually. IMO, if a teacher has a good command of the material for the religion class and is able to teach it, then that should be the only requirement. I suppose that most people who would develop a good command of the material probably would be observant Catholics, but the job should be awarded based on the direct qualifications themselves.It is the kind of thinking which says, as I know you have, that a private Catholic school can not refuse to hire an atheist on those grounds if he applies to be a math teacher or a teacher of English----because he is not teaching "religion".
I think you're twisting around what I'm saying. You're free to consider anything you do as an expression of your faith; so is anyone else, and so is the Catholic Church. The only limitations I'm suggesting are ones that prevent people or groups from imposing harm on others. If you're asking for the right for the Church to discriminate against people it disapproves of, well, then I don't think what you're asking for is reasonable. And if you're not asking for that, then the limitations I'm talking about wouldn't impinge your ability to make whatever you do an expression of your religion.We forget that that very word "religion" is part of the modern vocabulary. For us, Catholicism is biology, it is mathematics, it is literature, it might even be pre-school. But you would have the State begin the process of forcing the intellecutal fragmentation of modernity onto Catholic thought, the one that says "math" or "physics" is not related to God and to the transmission of faith. Likewise, with the framgentation of the person, that says being an accountant or a secretary is not related to our spirituality, and therefore faith.
I don't even think you would give Catholics the luxury to re-create our own ghettos, which is surely what Chaput is suggesting.
I suppose.No, but they, like any business that offers services to the public, are obligated to provide those services on an equitable basis.
Wait... so are you saying that if we leave the Catholic Church alone on the issue of homosexuality, it will come to a satisfactory resolution itself in its own way?
Did the USA stop killing American Indians, when left alone, in their own thinking.
Did England stop santioning the mass slaughter of Australian Aboriginal people, when left alone, in their own thinking.
Debate, forcing an issue, doesn't show people their different intelligence, it just pushes them further into justifying their own intelligence.
But you're against the right of this lesbian couple to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, aren't you? That's an equality right.I am not "against equality rights", they are important to me.
Hmm. I see this as merely an expression of the principle that a person's access to employment should be determined by their qualifications alone and not things like religious affiliation. Protecting an employee of a Catholic school from being fired for not being Catholic isn't "pushing" any further than it is to insist that some other employer can't fire an employee for being Catholic. It's two sides of the same coin.I simply think that when the logic of them carrys us to conclude, for example, that a private Catholic institution for education can not make the practice of the Catholic faith part of its criteria for teachers, something has gone awry and something has been pushed too far.
Perhaps, but as I pointed out in my last post, group rights are derived from individual rights. If the rights of people are deemed to be baseless, then by extension the rights of collections of people will be deemed baseless as well. Either way, there's no good case for why a church's rights should supercede human rights.I also think, sooner or later, we will have to ask ourselves why we have rights at all and what it is that they are grounded on.
Why do you pin the blame on the person who stands up for their rights? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to speak out against the person infringing the rights in the first place? Hurting other people is the real thing that's "iminical to the spirit of a community".Sometimes, I also think the appeal to rights incessantly, as necessary as they have been in historical circumstance, is in danger of tiring itself out, or ourselves. They can be iminical to the spirit of a community, which depends on dialogue and, as I said before, an encounter of hearts, rather than a constant appeal to legal notions that legislate a kind of bubble around the individual and set them up in tension with the community.
OTOH, disregard for the human rights of Aboriginal peoples has been very destructive to their way of life as well.You should look into the discussion among Aboriginals about the language of human rights, which many of them oppose as culturally imperialisitc and destructive to their way of life.
And they're all a foreseeable outcome of establishing Canon Law in the first place, aren't they?In terms of matters intra to the Catholic community, the talk of rights is often used in a toxic way. People say that they have a "right" to communion, a "right" to the priesthood, who perform their "sit-ins" and make politicized spectacles at Mass, as happened recently in the Netherlands--- all these ultimately sap out the mystery of the church community wherever they occur.
Protecting an employee of a Catholic school from being fired for not being Catholic isn't "pushing" any further than it is to insist that some other employer can't fire an employee for being Catholic. It's two sides of the same coin.
Yes, a Catholic school: a place to provide children with a Catholic education. This does not necessarily require the teacher to be Catholic. It certainly doesn't require the janitor or treasurer to be.Not when the basic idea behind the founding of the private institution is that it is a Catholic school.
Lucky kid. That was a close call.
Think it'd work in Ireland?
I'd happily become a lesbian if I thought the church would refuse to educate my kids and the state was forced to provide me with some secular education.
It's not a religion, it's a daycare. A business doesn't stop being a business just because it's owned by a church.
Kinda... the child was enrolled in a preschool program at a private school. As I mentioned before after I made that post, I found more details: the school said they would let the child stay through kindergarten, but wouldn't be allowed to proceed into their elementary school program.You know this is was for re-enrolment for a private school and not a daycare facility right?
You might want to spell them out, because they're not at all obvious to me.This is not new, churches or private schools ran by churches do not fall under the same discrimination laws that normal businesses do for obvious reasons.
Do you also think other businesses should be able to discriminate against their clientele? I alluded before to the incident where a Denny's restaurant got sued for discriminating against black customers. Should that lawsuit not have been successful?Not that I agree with them, myself I think the whole catholic church should be dismantled but that doesn't change my belief that you should be able to have a private school excluding whomever for whatever.
There are tax dollars paying for the school. As you pointed out, the school is run by a church, which receives subsidy from the government in the form of both government services provided free-of-charge, and in the form of tax deductions for its donors.If there are no tax dollars paying for the school I see don't how just anyone would think they should have a say about who gets in and who doesn't.
I think those issues are different... with the exception of income. I don't think it's appropriate for a private school to discriminate on the basis of income; it's certainly within its rights to ask that people pay their tuition fees, but that's not the same thing.If you take away your personal feelings about discrimination do you really see any difference between excluding someone because of their beliefs, their income, their grades? Kids are excluded all the time from private schools, surely you can see how a belief in a religions school would be a restriction.
If we were talking about an across-the-board freedom of all organizations to discriminate freely, then I could see your point. It wouldn't be a situation I'd personally prefer, but I could see that the law was being applied equally. However, what I disagree with strongly is the idea that religious organizations should be exempt from the normal requirements of the law for no reason other than the fact that they're religious.I don't think it is the governments job to step into the private sector and start telling people how to operate despite my feelings about discrimination.
I don't think a religious organization gains a right to discriminate just because it's a religious organization. If that were so, then what would stop it from gaining a right to murder just because it's a religious organization?
If we were talking about an across-the-board freedom of all organizations to discriminate freely, then I could see your point. It wouldn't be a situation I'd personally prefer, but I could see that the law was being applied equally. However, what I disagree with strongly is the idea that religious organizations should be exempt from the normal requirements of the law for no reason other than the fact that they're religious.
No, the church is wrong. The child should be allowed to attend school.Is the Roman Catholic Church right to exclude the child of a lesbian couple from its school?
Is the Church's action persecution?
The only reason I can come up with for this is the disproportionate amount of power that religions have had historically, but I don't see this as justification so much as an unfortunate reason.I think it is fair to say that the law has to have the ability to work and change with the challenges that faces its society. Religion for a long time has been a large part of our culture, and I don't think it is that hard of a stretch to understand why discrimination and religious private organizations gain an exception as a personal belief has a lot to do with this.
How, though? We're all one society; nobody's an island.I understand you are trying to draw a line in the sand but if enough people want to live or instruct their way without the influence of those who differ then such a circumstance should be allowed.