Pop goes the Equality

[Salazaar]

There'd be an almighty storm if the church turned round and said it wouldn't let black people become priests because it was morally against being black, so why is the same attitude against homosexuality acceptable?

[opel80uk]

There'd be an almighty storm if the church turned round and said it wouldn't let black people become priests because it was morally against being black, so why is the same attitude against homosexuality acceptable?

Because nowhere in the bible does it mention that being black is a sin. This isn't the Pope coming up with this stuff out of nowhere, it's in the book that the Church uses as it's point of reference.

The church is not discriminating against homosexuality, it is simply saying that homosexuality is against it's beliefs and teachings and therefore someone who is homosexual is not going to be a suitable employee for that organisation. It seems to me a quite consistent argument.

If a local social services organisation set up an outreach programme for troubled youths from a particular ethnic minority and were looking for someone to work directly with these kids, is it wrong for that particular social services to request or seek that the role be filled by someone from that particular ethnic minority? It is clearly discrimination to exclude people not from that ethnic group but that makes perfect sense if they feel that someone from that ethnic group will be best suited for the role, a large part of that being based on their ethnicity.

Or is it only discrimination if you don't agree with it? That's the problem with laws like this, you cannot be selective and they turn what is a clearly complex issue, and one which should be looked at case by case, and turns it into a black and white argument; Is this person/organisation discriminating? If so, it is illegal. If laws like this mean I could be prosecuted for discriminating against a member of the BNP based solely on his/her political views, which I would do, then the law is an ass.

[Saracen]

Hello Guys (ooops, have I discriminated against all the female posters?)

The problem when you start telling individual and groups what they should and shouldn't believe in, is that you are effectively discriminating against them, the exact thing you are arguing against. Just because we don't share a particular belief with an individual or group does not make our position anymore valid then theirs, and it is ridiculous to say that believing something or someone is immoral is the same as discrimination; it simply is not. There is a clear distinction between thinking and acting.

If the Pope is calling for attacks and universal discrimination towards any particular group, then that's one thing, but to oppose a law that would force the church to employ people that, rightly or wrongly, they feel act in an immoral way seems fairly logical to me. If someone came for a job in my company and he told me he was a BNP member, I would discriminate against him and not give him a job simply on that basis, something that is illegal in this country, which is absurd.

The people calling for equality laws to go even further can't have it both ways and you can't pick and choose who to discriminate against, based on your own moral views.

The issue isn't about what the Catholic Church does or doesn't believe about people. The issue is when, and indeed IF they ought be be permitted to say "we believe God's law says this and man's law says that, so on the basis of God's law, we will ignore, or seek to change, man's law.

Extend the logic. If "belief" is enough to ignore man's law, sooner or later someone will come up with a religion that thinks bank robbery is okay, or murder, or child rape. And how big a "religion" does it have to be? Is it only Catholics? Or only Christians? Or maybe Christian, Muslim, Judaism, and Hindu? What about Buddhists? Scientologists? When does "belief" become "religion"?

Or is it just about how long the religions has existed? If so, what about Indian tribes that believe in animal Gods, or some tribe buried away in the Amazonian forests that believe we ought to paint ourselves in purple mud and worship the spirit that lives in a local tree. And, for that matter, what about bringing back Aztec faith, complete with human sacrifice?

We need to be very careful when we start letting ANY groups religious views start dictating what man's laws can and can't be, for the simple reason that not a one of those groups can actually come up with concrete proof that their "god" is the one, and that the other lot are wrong. They might believe that, passionately and genuinely, but they can't prove it.

And, given that it is all just a matter of belief, then the pomp and ceremony, the robes and regalia, the symbols and rituals, harmonious voices raised to the rafters, and the monumental (and spectacular) grand Cathedrals which are more of a homage to excess then to "God" actually make no more sense than that Amazon native, dancing naked round the campfire in nothing but his purple mud.

Yet, we let such organisations affect the laws we all have to abide by, and in this case, making the Government back off. Mind you, the cynic in me says that that is more about the pragmatism of a government that knows it has a fight on it's hands to keep itself in power not wanting to upset a powerful group of voters right before an election, since it might cost it seats.

[Saracen]

.....

The church is not discriminating against homosexuality, it is simply saying that homosexuality is against it's beliefs and teachings and therefore someone who is homosexual is not going to be a suitable employee for that organisation. It seems to me a quite consistent argument.
.....

Erm .... that's a lucid description of exactly how the Church is discriminating against homosexuals. It is discriminating because it is using whether someone is gay or not to differentiate, and it is discriminating against them by denying them an employment opportunity on that basis.

And what it wants is an exception to the laws others would have to abide by because of it's "beliefs".

[opel80uk]

The issue isn't about what the Catholic Church does or doesn't believe about people. The issue is when, and indeed IF they ought be be permitted to say "we believe God's law says this and man's law says that, so on the basis of God's law, we will ignore, or seek to change, man's law.

I don't think anyone has said that they (the RCC) plan to ignore the law if it is brought in, but they certainly do have the right to say that they seek to oppose or to try and change mans law, as we all do. What they are saying is no different to what you or I are able to say, except they have a bigger platform.

Extend the logic. If "belief" is enough to ignore man's law, sooner or later someone will come up with a religion that thinks bank robbery is okay, or murder, or child rape. And how big a "religion" does it have to be? Is it only Catholics? Or only Christians? Or maybe Christian, Muslim, Judaism, and Hindu? What about Buddhists? Scientologists? When does "belief" become "religion"?

When did anyone say that belief is enough to ignore man's law? I certainly didn't and in all the reports I read about what the Pope said, he didn't say it either.

[opel80uk]

Erm .... that's a lucid description of exactly how the Church is discriminating against homosexuals. It is discriminating because it is using whether someone is gay or not to differentiate, and it is discriminating against them by denying them an employment opportunity on that basis.

But if someone's sexuality, age, gender, race, disability, etc directly affects that persons ability to do the job, then discrimination (If you want to call it that) is acceptable. If I went to string fellows for a job as a table dancer, is it right that they wouldn't be able to discriminate against me based on me being male? Of course not and that is my point, a blanket ban on discrimination is illogical, and the law at the moment affords sufficient protection for those who are genuinely discriminated against.

And what it wants is an exception to the laws others would have to abide by because of it's "beliefs".

There should always be exceptions to laws. Rarely is anything in life black and white.

[Saracen]

.....

There should always be exceptions to laws. Rarely is anything in life black and white.

Indeed, I agree it's rare, and there often are exceptions. Including, more than once, to discrimination laws on religious grounds.

As always, it's a case of getting a balance, between the harm done to one group of people one way, against that done to another group another way.

But if someone's sexuality, age, gender, race, disability, etc directly affects that persons ability to do the job, then discrimination (If you want to call it that) is acceptable. If I went to string fellows for a job as a table dancer, is it right that they wouldn't be able to discriminate against me based on me being male? Of course not and that is my point, a blanket ban on discrimination is illogical, and the law at the moment affords sufficient protection for those who are genuinely discriminated against.

There's a large difference between an employer not being willing to hire someone unable to do a job and someone you exclude because of beliefs you can't back up in a factual, empirical way.

And, as you imply, that is the problem. Where do you put the line? And precisely what constitutes "unable" to do the job.

If the job is "teaching Christian faith" and that faith includes a belief that homosexuality is against "God's law", can you teach that if you are homosexual? The argument could be made that you could not do the job, but the argument could also be made that the teaching is prejudiced, illogical and based on the mores of a very different culture and society, and level of scientific knowledge, to the one we have now, at least in this country. And as "God's law" has, pretty much by definition, to be taken "on faith", there's no way to know whether it is in fact the wished of a supreme being, or simply a collection of historical anecdotes and, largely speaking, decent and ethical moral values which would make the world a better place if we all paid more attention to them. And, for the sake of even-handedness, you could say much the same about the values and principles of most major religions which seem to differ more in the detail of paraphernalia and personality than major principles of guidance.

But if the job were cleaning, or manning the shop in a Cathedral, does being gay affect an ability to do the job?

It's all in that "balance".

[SeriousSam]

There's a large difference between an employer not being willing to hire someone unable to do a job and someone you exclude because of beliefs you can't back up in a factual, empirical way.

I'd be surprised if anyone has been given a job based on a facts... beyond qualifications etc. it all comes down to supposition on the interviewers part that you are the right person for the job.

[Saracen]

I'd be surprised if anyone has been given a job based on a facts... beyond qualifications etc. it all comes down to supposition on the interviewers part that you are the right person for the job.

A lot depends on the type of job. For simple mundane jobs, a lot cones down to "can you do it?" If you can, you stand a decent chance of being given the chance, and if you then prove you can't, being given the boot.

The more demanding the job, the more involved the recruitment process is. For instance, an IT hjob might well depend on a mix of factors like :-

- ability to convince the interviewer you have the technical skills needed
- your appearance
- your apparent interpersonal skills
- the perceived ability to work in a team if that's what is required
- the perceived ability to fly alone, and think on your feet if that is required
- the rapport you get with the interviewer
- whether you shoot yourself down with any stupid answers
- .... and so on.

So I suppose a lot depends on the what you mean by "supposition you're right" for the job. A skilfukl interviewer knows what he's after, even if (and especially if) it isn't obvious to the interviewee what he's after.

So ... you might call it "supposition", but I'd say a skilful interviewer knows how to read people, and knows what he wants and how to find out if you have it. And often, a LOT is about your personality .... which might well mean the answer isn't what the interviewer is after, but how you answer it, and perhaps how long it takes you to answer it.

[opel80uk]

It's all in that "balance".

Quite right. Unfortunately what the new bill does, and what the pope was speaking out against, is remove any kind of "balance" and turn what essentially should be taken on a case by case scenario, and turn it into a straight forward yes/no one.

[Saracen]

Quite right. Unfortunately what the new bill does, and what the pope was speaking out against, is remove any kind of "balance" and turn what essentially should be taken on a case by case scenario, and turn it into a straight forward yes/no one.

Not from what I read of his comments he isn't.

He isn't after limited exceptions to the laws - he's after wholesale exemption on the basis of "religious belief", and then claims that that's some kind of "natural law".

We do not have a legislative system system based on ANY religious belief, and long may it be so. So when a member of society's right to freedom from discrimination in matters like employment are curtailed because of the bigoted belief of the Pope or, for that matter, Catholic teaching, society loses.

Making an exception where "lifestyle" precludes someone from doing the job, such as from the priesthood, is one thing. But allowing people to deny employment on the basis of not bigotry is entirely another.

Granting exceptions to national laws on the basis of religious belief, no matter what it is, needs to be done very carefully, and in as tightly limited a way as possible or you open the floodgates to all sorts of nutcase exceptions to the law because someone claims it as a religious belief.

This isn't "balance". It's exemption.

[SeriousSam]

I think that to an extent what it comes down to is the difference between being discerning and discriminating, both of which are subjective, but the intent behind them is different. It is also part of why creating and enforcing legislation in this area is highly problematic. This is especially true when the consequences of any decision significantly impacts on others. As an example not allowing women on the frontline in war could be viewed as both discriminating and discerning depending on your viewpoint. So deciding where you draw the line is not easy, and to complicate matters “precedence” can be abused to extend the scope of a piece of legislation beyond its original remit.

Now when it comes to religion the situation just becomes a big mess due to one simple ideology, whereby “God” comes first, then the real world. This makes it even more difficult to create meaningful legislation as you are often trying to integrate binary thinking into an analogue world system.

Ideally you want to be in a situation whereby man made law supersedes religious law in all cases, even to the extent of making certain practises illegal. This is because as soon as you start allowing exemptions you face the situation whereby religions will try and push their “laws” more and more. However, we have been denied this option due to human rights legislation, which is a good example of why trying to control human behaviour through legislation is not always a good idea. Plus if there is no god then to be consistent either everything on the planet has the same rights, or has none. Ascribing ourselves more importance in the grand scheme of things just because we can think is just arrogant and self serving. I’d also argue that having human rights legislation is not only indicative of not being a civilised society, but that it interferes with the evolution of civilised societies. However, that is a whole other discussion…

Personally I don’t believe any exemptions should be given to religions within law. If it were up to me even Halal and Kosher meat practises would be outlawed as they serve no useful purpose in the modern world. However, in regards to discrimination then I have no issue with them being free within law to do so on the basis of sexuality, but that is because I don’t agree with the legislation itself. Not because I believe that they have a god given right to be able to discriminate.

Persecuting someone on the basis of an arbitrary reason such as race or sex is wrong, as is not giving them a job. However, they are not necessarily the same thing and need to be dealt with in different ways.

Let’s say Mr. Zag goes for a job interview with company Zog. His interviewer Mr. Zig has had bad experiences of Zags working for him before so doesn’t give him the job. Under anti-discrimination law he could be prosecuted, and in our current social climate he’d probably be found guilty. Now some of you may think, quite right too, but I would contend that he might actually be right in not giving Mr. Zag the job as he may not be suited to actually performing it well because he is a Zag. This is entirely different to not giving Mr. Zag the job just because of a second hand stereotypical or religious belief, or in fact the situation where he goes out at weekends to hunt and kill Mr. Zags.

In addition to this having such laws can be counterproductive, especially in our society where politicians and the media seek to manipulate the general population. Just by having such laws you can engender a perception that a particular group is privileged, consequently creating more negative feelings towards them. Conversely religions will react to your trying to constrain them, playing the “martyr” and strengthening the power of their more conservative members.

The only way you can actually change people’s behaviour is through education and personal experience. Even if the Catholic Church had not been given an exemption you can guarantee that they would have found a way to block openly homosexual men from becoming priests. Of course they would still allow the ones that hide in the closet with the altar boys, but that is a different matter.

I do wonder whether there isn’t an easier and somewhat sneakier way to deal with the situation. Without remembering the specific details I’m fairly certain that religious organisations are accorded special status under tax laws etc. Now wouldn’t it be easier to set stipulations against that and then let them deal with the financial impact of their own beliefs. Whilst they may kick up about that, they can’t claim that they are being denied their religious beliefs, because they have a choice. In fact doesn’t it in the end all come down to choice? If you remove people’s ability to make choices then they will react badly to that as they feel as though they are not trusted to make decisions.

[oolon]

Have you ever noticed how the pope looks like a Sith lord?



He is urging people to come over to the dark side!

[SeriousSam]

There's a rather obvious comment / pun relating to your comment and the picture...

[floppybootstomp]

It's quite possible that the various and varied churches are the only institutions left to publicly discriminate against gays & lesbians.

Which is probably one of the reasons why their attendance numbers have dropped dramatically in the last few decades.

[Saracen]

I think that to an extent .....

<Long Post>

Very cogently and eloquently put. Great post.