Discrimination by religious groups to be outlawed

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Can we really defence Freedom of Religion if that religion is supporting a crusade against innocent groups of the human race. If a religion does not have some legal control over them, it will open the door to religous fanatics to preach and brainwash their followers into commiting acts of terror against innocent people and using the protection which many nations give religion. Some religions do not allow their followers from electing their leaders or have the power to remove any. We have the opportunity to elect and remove our poltical leaders but not the church leaders. The only course of action a follower of religion who is unhappy with his church, is to leave, this does not resolve the issue of stopping religous leaders from abusing their power.

There are still violent conflicts in this world which are wholely based on religion, people are dying and living in fear because religous groups are still squabbling like children over who is right and dictating their beliefs to the people.

Maybe it should be Freedom of the People over Freedom of Religion.

[princealbertofb]

about this:
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership. In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith ...

I think the only way to do this would be the French way, ie all weddings are made official only through the state registry and registration. The religious wedding is just the icing on some people's cakes. Because if all churches are allowed to have their weddings made official, then why couldn't they also make civil partnerships official too? In my view, there should never have been a distinction in words for the ceremony and the things they both encompass.

[peterinmalaga]

I do believe in freedom of religion, which means that if a religion wants to discriminate based on their beliefs, they should be able to do so. (Wintereis)


Yeah. Hitler believed that it is OK to discriminate based on your beliefs too. So that's OK.


A religion is an ideology and as such is no more rationally defensible than any other ideology, such as communism or fascism. The fact that I believe something does not give me the moral authority to do anything to anybody or anything. Churches (by which I mean religions) have fairly consistently believed that women, black people (other “races”), homosexuals and members of other religions are inferior to themselves. On the basis of this belief people have been arrested, tortured, murdered and executed. This is not history, it is happening today in several countries in Africa and other parts of the world. In 36 countries in Africa homosexual activity of any kind is illegal. This situation has not been challenged by the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury and has been legitimized by the Evangelical churches of the USA (though they have recently modified their position).


Definition of ideology (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

[fredv3b]

Yeah. Hitler believed that it is OK to discriminate based on your beliefs too. So that's OK.

Peter, that's a straw-man argument and you know it. Discrimination is one thing mass murder entirely another.

The fact that I believe something does not give me the moral authority to do anything to anybody or anything.

No man is an island entire of itself

Unless you live in complete isloation as a hermit, then a great many things we do have an effect on others, we discriminate between those who are our friends and those who aren't between whose shops we frequent and those we do not, etc. etc. It is a practical impossibility to treat all persons equally. In any case I am sure there are plenty for instances of discrimination where we would all agree are justified e.g. between the guilty and the innocent, between they needy and the greedy, etc.

I appreciate what you say about ideology but an you name a time or a place where there wasn't ideology? Mill's belief in freedom is an ideology, albeit one to which I subscribe.

[ilvtrees]

I'm not a fan of religion myself, but speaking as an American, I am loathe to infringe on the right of a religious group to run their organization as they see fit. In the interest of Separation of Church and State, I think they have to be let alone.
I also think if the state starts regulating church's hiring policies, then the biggest argument opponents of gay marriage have will be validated, that it will be a slippery slope to the state telling churches how to act.
A church group would not hire a Hindu youth leader for a Lutheran church, so if something goes against their professed beliefs, a church should be let alone. Just as they should leave us the hell alone.
The only analogous situation I can think of would be if the state could force us to go to church. I'd be furious.

I think we need to keep church and state as far apart as possible, and encourage other countries to do the same. Although, has anyone thought of allowing political asylum to gays in countries where homosexuality is outlawed?

[princealbertofb]

The problem is they'd have to check all claims of homosexuality and harrassment or persecution. So it would never be so easy as one might think, for a gay African to go into political (cultural?; sexual?) exile.
Incidentally, yes, it has been known to happen. But immigration bureaus make a lot of investigations before allowing them to stay. Sometimes on account of national resentment, or immigration policies, they'll send people back although they have real grounds to want to stay in our countries. They will only be killed if they go back.

[Nodak]

Interesting cultural difference here. I agree with the other two Americans who have posted. I would oppose any such law in the US. Will always want Government power restricted as much as possible.

[peterinmalaga]

Discrimination is one thing mass murder entirely another. (Fred)
Yes Fred and for the first 9 years of his dictatorship Hitler discriminated. It was only from 1942 to 1945 that he implemented the policy of mass extermination. Discrimination was the necessary precursor to the extermination programme.


In any case I am sure there are plenty for instances of discrimination where we would all agree are justified e.g. between the guilty and the innocent, between they needy and the greedy, etc.
Yes but discrimination is always a sign that something is wrong in a society.

I appreciate what you say about ideology but an you name a time or a place where there wasn't ideology?
My point about ideology is that ideologies are used to legitimize the unjustifiable in too many cases and we need to be aware of this. People think that they only have to make passing reference to the ideology in order to justify their injustices. All ideologies are not equally valid. Churches use their ideologies to justify the oppression of minorities – as in Malawi and Uganda now.

[marshlander]

I'm not a fan of religion myself, but speaking as an American, I am loathe to infringe on the right of a religious group to run their organization as they see fit. In the interest of Separation of Church and State, I think they have to be let alone.

Interesting cultural difference here. I agree with the other two Americans who have posted. I would oppose any such law in the US. Will always want Government power restricted as much as possible.

Indeed the differences are interesting. I don't think much of having my choices regulated by ideas that informed opinions hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Every four or five years I can vote out a government I don't like. However, even were I to sign up to membership of a religion my opinion would have no bearing on the way they might decide I should be treated. They can do what they like without reference to the people most affected if god says it's okay and god's representatives on earth do not have to account to an electorate for their actions.

A church group would not hire a Hindu youth leader for a Lutheran church, so if something goes against their professed beliefs, a church should be let alone. Just as they should leave us the hell alone.
The only analogous situation I can think of would be if the state could force us to go to church. I'd be furious...

So would I, but I'd make damned sure they realised they were better off without me being there under duress! As it is I have a choice whether or not I attend. Sadly, they don't leave us the hell alone. Current evidence suggests that many church leaders are not content to allow us the same simple freedoms they enjoy. As Peter has pointed out, that kind of interference can stoke some uncontrollable fires. Being allowed to carry on behaving according to "professed beliefs" is carte blanche to treat others without respect, human decency or accountability.

Maybe the problem is that I can't see why a Hindu would not be able to do a perfectly fine job of being a youth leader, providing he had the experience and qualifications necessary to do the job. It's not the same as applying for the vicar's job, is it? :confused:

[fredv3b]

I also think if the state starts regulating church's hiring policies, then the biggest argument opponents of gay marriage have will be validated, that it will be a slippery slope to the state telling churches how to act.

Should a church be able to insist that the Accountant, who annually audits the the accounts of the hospital that the church runs, be heterosexual or Christian?

When a church engages in activity outside its houses of worship, how far should its special privileges, to be immune from laws that effect everyone else, extend?