Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[Erebus]

I don't think there is any evidence to support that (depending on your definition of necessary).

Evidence to support what? Mistreatment of minorities? Or evidence of the necessity of intervention?

Evidence for the necessity for intervention would be the mistreatment of minorities. If you want evidence for the mistreatment of minorities I'd simply suggest google. You'll get plenty of articles (newspaper and scholarly articles) probably some shocking pictures depending on your image filter, a few personal accounts etc. If I had a scanner, I'd load up some of the articles I studied during sociology and criminology lectures, unfortunately I can't.

 

[Baydwin]

:sarcastic xenophobia is a fear of foreigners...
it doesnt have anythign to do with homosexuality

Xenophobia is the fear of people who are different, in any way, from what you consider normal.

 

[lupus]

I think the ex hitler youth turned god botherer should butt out and mind his own business. Thakfully I live in a country where the GOVERNMENT make the laws of the land not the religious nuts. The irony of a church, which did everything it could to deny and cover up the paedophile priests, expecting anyone to take their opinions on the subject of equality and fairness seriously is just astounding! :no:

 

[Humanistheart]

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".
Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.
The Pope has confirmed he will visit the UK this year, the first since Pope John Paul II in 1982.
The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.
And gay rights campaigners have condemned the Pope's comments.



BBC News - Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill




Churches have warned new equality laws could force them to go against their faith when hiring staff.
They say the Equality Bill may force them to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

BBC News - Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith

The equality bill

Equality Bill

any thoughts?

How many more years of the catholics holding us back is the world going to put up with? Isn't it time to outlaw the religion all together?

 

[Autodidact]

Would this be the same church that tortured Galileo into renouncing the truth that the earth revolves around the sun in 1633 and just got around to correcting that error in 1992? Perhaps they'll understand if we don't pay too much heed to their views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The government has an obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. I would generally agree with that statement. However, allowing businesses to hire who they want for what reason they want does not interfere with the government's obligation.

The ship has sailed on that objection. It's already an established point of law in the UK (as well as many other countries) that the government can and will legally prohibit discriminatory hiring practices.

If your objection is "government interference", then it's a wash: "interference" is common to both this proposed law and the status quo.

Here's the question that I think is more relevant: is it right to have a situation where the government interferes with businesses that engage in discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion while simultaneously not interfering when businesses engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[Aquitaine]

Ah the Pope saying something stupid again, no suprise.


Tell me, why do we give him so much respect, who cares what he thinks.

Another problem of this is that his own words are gonna have a backlash effect against moderate Catholics in this country, just like how Choudary's words have a backlash against the moderate Muslims in this country.

I don't think the Pope should be banned or whatever, but he should just not get so much publicity. Who cares what some old fart wearing a costume and a silly hat says?

 

[linwood]

If you can't find somewhere to work because you don't fit the standards of any companies, then you will be forced to get better at something or start your own company. Whether or not you disagree with the standards of a particular company or organization aren't the government's problem. The government should not interfere with that to which the government has no claim.

So if I`m a black woman who can`t get a job because there is no racial equality protection how exactly do I change my skin color to meet these employers "standards".

I`m a gay person who can`t get hired because my natural sexual leanings don`t meet the standards of my potential employers.
How do I meet these standards?

The idea is ridiculous.

Read the constitution again.
The government does indeed have a claim in equitable hiring practices.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the constitution again.
The government does indeed have a claim in equitable hiring practices.

Heh... when you're talking about the UK, "read the constitution" is a more complex task than one might think.

 

[Erebus]

Who cares what some old fart wearing a costume and a silly hat says?

Couldn't have said it better. Frubals!

 

[Smoke]

These "equality" laws are a great way for governments to supersede standards set by groups or businesses that may be higher than those set by the government.

If you really think refusing to hire gay people is a "higher" standard, then -- with all due respect (none) -- go **** yourself.

 

[TheKnight]

fortunatly we have anti discrimination laws...

Your analogy leavs it way open...back to the dark ages of less than a century ago...

we could equally allow the employer to not employ due to color of skin.

Indeed we could.

And if everybody decides not to hire him because he's gay, what then?
You can't have a society that endorses irrational discrimination, it's immoral.

What then? Then he's out of luck. It's his responsibility to make a living. It's not society's responsibility and it definitely is not an employers responsibility to ensure that he earns a living.

But businesses don't exist in a vacuum. They benefit from governmental agencies, and their profits come from their customers, whom are members of society. So owners of a business gain wealth by being part of a society. To turn around and exclude certain members of society to benefit from the existence of the business, such as by eclusion from employment opportunity is unfair.

If that's the case, then customers and government will stop supporting said business and the business will have to either change its standards or go down. So what. People pay for products from certain businesses. That doesn't give them a right to determine how the business operates.

Evidence to support what? Mistreatment of minorities? Or evidence of the necessity of intervention?

Evidence for the necessity for intervention would be the mistreatment of minorities. If you want evidence for the mistreatment of minorities I'd simply suggest google. You'll get plenty of articles (newspaper and scholarly articles) probably some shocking pictures depending on your image filter, a few personal accounts etc. If I had a scanner, I'd load up some of the articles I studied during sociology and criminology lectures, unfortunately I can't.

Why does mistreatment of minorities necessitate intervention? Are minorities incapable of starting their own businesses and companies to become just as successful as the majority?

The ship has sailed on that objection. It's already an established point of law in the UK (as well as many other countries) that the government can and will legally prohibit discriminatory hiring practices.

Then why complain about the Pope protesting to it?

Here's the question that I think is more relevant: is it right to have a situation where the government interferes with businesses that engage in discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion while simultaneously not interfering when businesses engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

In my opinion, government should not interfere at all when it comes to your hiring practices. Regardless of who you decide to discriminate against.

So if I`m a black woman who can`t get a job because there is no racial equality protection how exactly do I change my skin color to meet these employers "standards".

You don't. You find some way to get successful at something. I would rather believe that said woman has the ability to develop a necessary skill or start an organization of her own where she can become successful of her own means than believe that she isn't good enough to figure something out. Ensuring that she gets a job because "she can't make it anywhere else" is an insult to her.

I`m a gay person who can`t get hired because my natural sexual leanings don`t meet the standards of my potential employers.
How do I meet these standards?

You don't. You go somewhere that the standard includes you. Or you become so good at what you do that the company can't help but to hire you despite it's own opinions.

The government does indeed have a claim in equitable hiring practices.

Yeah, I bet it does. I'm not arguing what the government has the power to do, I'm arguing what it should and should not do. The government should not be mommy and daddy to hold the hands of every person out there. It definitely should not force companies to help out people just because they can't find work somewhere else.

If you really think refusing to hire gay people is a "higher" standard, then -- with all due respect (none) -- go **** yourself.

I don't think it's a higher standard. I was using it as an example. You could replace gay with black, female, male, etc. I used gay for the example because the article specifically mentioned gays.

My point is that if company X thinks that condition A is a disqualifier for position 1. Then company X should have the right to exclude all people with condition A from position 1. Regardless of whether or not condition A people like it. My point is that it's not a company's responsibility to give you a job. It's your responsibility to work hard to get one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why complain about the Pope protesting to it?

Because there are differences between what's proposed and what exists now. But when you argue against the proposed law on the grounds that you're against government "interference" in business, it's like a vegetarian arguing for meatloaf over steak because he's against eating meat.

The question of this bill isn't whether government should "interfere" in business, the question is how that "interference" should be carried out.

In my opinion, government should not interfere at all when it comes to your hiring practices. Regardless of who you decide to discriminate against.

You didn't answer my question. And for the purposes of this discussion, total government non-interference is not an available option. The only two options available are:

- pass the law, including all its "interference".
- not pass the law, and be left with all the "interference" the UK has now.

Which of those two options do you think is better? If your answer is "neither", then you're really telling us that you have nothing to say on the actual matter at hand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it's a higher standard. I was using it as an example. You could replace gay with black, female, male, etc. I used gay for the example because the article specifically mentioned gays.

My point is that if company X thinks that condition A is a disqualifier for position 1. Then company X should have the right to exclude all people with condition A from position 1. Regardless of whether or not condition A people like it. My point is that it's not a company's responsibility to give you a job. It's your responsibility to work hard to get one.

What an awful arrangement.

Speaking as someone who values his personal freedom and the personal freedom of others, I'm very glad that the law where I live prohibits employers from imposing arbitrary, non-job-related conditions on employment.

An employer has the right to demand that his or her employees are qualified... even to a very high degree. An employer doesn't have the right to rule his or her employee's lives away from work.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think it's a higher standard. I was using it as an example. You could replace gay with black, female, male, etc. I used gay for the example because the article specifically mentioned gays.

My point is that if company X thinks that condition A is a disqualifier for position 1. Then company X should have the right to exclude all people with condition A from position 1. Regardless of whether or not condition A people like it. My point is that it's not a company's responsibility to give you a job. It's your responsibility to work hard to get one.

Great. That would not only make it legal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age, or sexual orientation; it would also make it legal to require your employees to tithe to your church, deworm your dog, buy a car from your brother's used car lot, and perform sexual favors for middle management.

It's a good thing your ideas are no longer generally accepted.

 

[TheKnight]

Because there are differences between what's proposed and what exists now. But when you argue against the proposed law on the grounds that you're against government "interference" in business, it's like a vegetarian arguing for meatloaf over steak because he's against eating meat.

The question of this bill isn't whether government should "interfere" in business, the question is how that "interference" should be carried out.

I don't believe that answered my question. Or rather I don't understand how what I quoted above is a response to why one should care that the Pope is protesting the law that already exists.

You didn't answer my question. And for the purposes of this discussion, total government non-interference is not an available option.

Why not?

If your answer is "neither", then you're really telling us that you have nothing to say on the actual matter at hand.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

What an awful arrangement.

Speaking as someone who values his personal freedom and the personal freedom of others, I'm very glad that the law where I live prohibits employers from imposing arbitrary, non-job-related conditions on employment.

An employer has the right to demand that his or her employees are qualified... even to a very high degree. An employer doesn't have the right to rule his or her employee's lives away from work.

Its not a matter of ruling your away-from-work life. It's a matter of only wanting certain people working for YOUR company. In essence, you're giving people money to do things for you. Perhaps you only want certain people doing those things. My point is that it should be up to each individual employer to determine. NOT the government. If the employer's rules get too overbearing then they will lose customers and employees. The market will take care of how extremely a company imposes its standards on employees.

It's a good thing your ideas are no longer generally accepted.

Because I believe in employer sovereignty? I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I think the fundamental issue here is that the UK government is taking upon itself the task of deciding when belief is an essential requirement for a position of employment within religious communities.

Some go so far as to conjecture that the current definition could be open to erosion until equality laws apply to even pastoral positions.

This is tricky- the government may permit Catholic communities to discriminate against accepting gay men into the priesthood, but not gay men into the position of parish secretary.

But then, it might be case that the Church requires its employees in her service to keep in line with the norms of Catholic morality and belief, because it is not in the nature of this community to sipher off the human being in private and public, secular and religious speheres. Why is it up to the State to decide where morality and faith are important within a religious community?

I am umcomfortable with this legislation, not because I am against equality, but because I am also for religious communities being able to abide by their own moral and doctrinal norms, and enforce those norms within their community life.

The State should not be able to say when and when not beliefs are necessary to be employed by a Catholic diocese.

 

[Smoke]

But then, it might be case that the Church requires its employees in her service to keep in line with the norms of Catholic morality and belief, because it is not in the nature of this community to sipher off the human being in private and public, secular and religious speheres. Why is it up to the State to decide where morality and faith are important within a religious community?

Is that in fact the employment policy of the Catholic Church in the UK? Do they refuse to employ any person who is not a baptized Roman Catholic and active communicant who accepts all Catholic beliefs and follows all Catholic teachings?

Or might you find, somewhere, a Protestant janitor, a Jewish secretary, a Hindu daycare worker, who works for the Church? Is there no one in the employ of the Church who has been divorced and remarried, or who rejects a belief in transubstantiation?

I am umcomfortable with this legislation, not because I am against equality, but because I am also for religious communities being able to abide by their own moral and doctrinal norms, and enforce those norms within their community life.

A religion that makes bigotry a moral and doctrinal norm is a religion that is unsuitable for any decent person.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Is that in fact the employment policy of the Catholic Church in the UK? Do they refuse to employ any person who is not a baptized Roman Catholic and active communicant who accepts all Catholic beliefs and follows all Catholic teachings?

Or might you find, somewhere, a Protestant janitor, a Jewish secretary, a Hindu daycare worker, who works for the Church? Is there no one in the employ of the Church who has been divorced and remarried, or who rejects a belief in transubstantiation?

To be honest, I do not know. Personally, I would hope it is not the case, but I would also like to leave the Church the freedom to decide. I know some positions that are more near and dear to parish life would very well be given out only to practicing Roman Catholics in good standing with the Church. On the other hand, some pastors might be more flexible and, as is always the case in any religious society, in some places certain breaches of official Catholic norms are overlooked (including homosexuality).

I have not come here to say that I entiery disagree with your concerns- only that I see other concerns for the integrity of religion's autonomy potentially at stake here.

What really stops the State from permitting the Church to refuse admittance of women into the seminary? If the State decides when belief is necessary for a position within a religious community, what stops it from saying certain beliefs are no longer justifiable before secular concepts of equality and rights?

A question like this obviously concerns many religions.

 

[Smoke]

I have not come here to say that I entiery disagree with your concerns- only that I see other concerns for the integrity of religion's autonomy potentially at stake here.

What really stops the State from permitting the Church to refuse admittance of women into the seminary? If the State decides when belief is necessary for a position within a religious community, what stops it from saying certain beliefs are no longer justifiable before secular concepts of equality and rights?

So then, you believe the Church should not be forced to do the right thing in the case at hand because you believe that if the Church is subject to any law that might at some later time interfere with the doctrine and discipline of the Church?