What is religious freedom, and why does it need protection in Australia? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14986214
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the differences between being a member of the clergy and being a teacher or student are significant enough to amke such comparisons problematic.



Many Catholic schools have fully-ordained teaching stuff, many Catholic schools had nuns, deacons, and priests as the sole instructors. Regardless, if these private educational facilities are an extension of the church's ministry and subject to its doctrine, my point applies; if you can tell the church what qualifies in its ministerial obligations in one place, it follows for all places. This distinction of yours is arbitrary.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps you could explain how that argument relates to this discussion.


You claimed that such rights to discriminate were not logically based, this argument demonstrates otherwise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you were the one who objected to the facts, and since you did not support your objection with numbers or any evidence, I think it is you who failed to show that Christians are a minority n Australia.


I referenced your own numbers, the non-religious have the single largest share of any group, the rest being subdivided between various Christian denominations of wildly varying beliefs, muslims, Buddhists, etc.

You then made the claim that the non-religious also are sub-divided into other groups, which is not evidenced in the wiki article, and you refused to defend this claim. Thus my point stands.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Regardless of their sexual orientation, these Catholics feel they are qualified to teach or study at a Catholic school. They feel, and there is some logic to this, that their desire to rub genitals with someone of the same sex is not relevant to their teaching or scholastic career.


Their feelings are irrelevant, if the school's charter claims submission to catholic dogma and that all teachers are likewise to publicly submit to this dogma, anyone who openly practices otherwise is immediately disqualified by definition and is in violation of the school's charter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your argument about being qualified or unqualified is relevant to a discussion in whether or not these Catholics fit certain traditional interpretations. It does not seem relevant to a discussion on whether or not getting fired or expelled from school.


You are claiming that people are being unfairly and arbitrarily discriminated against for positions that would otherwise be open to anyone, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

This is false, they are being prohibited for positions that they are by definition unqualified for, because the position requires practicing catholics, in good standing, and in submission to the dogma of the church. Homosexuals, divorcees, buddhists, muslims, protestants, trans-people, etc., would likewise not apply, so its not specific, its based solely on whether one meets the criteria as defined by the church since it is a church school.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Teachers can get fired. Students can be expelled.


They also get excommunicated or not admitted to particpate in the Mass, or barred from serving in Ministry, and for the exact same reason. Which is the point.

Would you argue that the church should be FORCED to do otherwise in these areas as well? Perhaps you think its discriminatory that atheists are barred from the Priesthood?
#14986215
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Many Catholic schools have fully-ordained teaching stuff, many Catholic schools had nuns, deacons, and priests as the sole instructors. Regardless, if these private educational facilities are an extension of the church's ministry and subject to its doctrine, my point applies; if you can tell the church what qualifies in its ministerial obligations in one place, it follows for all places. This distinction of yours is arbitrary.


Unless all teachers in Australian Catholic schools are also clergy, my distinction is relevant.

You claimed that such rights to discriminate were not logically based, this argument demonstrates otherwise.


How so?

I referenced your own numbers, the non-religious have the single largest share of any group, the rest being subdivided between various Christian denominations of wildly varying beliefs, muslims, Buddhists, etc.

You then made the claim that the non-religious also are sub-divided into other groups, which is not evidenced in the wiki article, and you refused to defend this claim. Thus my point stands.


No. Christians have the single largest share of any group, at slightly over 50%.

Their feelings are irrelevant, if the school's charter claims submission to catholic dogma and that all teachers are likewise to publicly submit to this dogma, anyone who openly practices otherwise is immediately disqualified by definition and is in violation of the school's charter.

You are claiming that people are being unfairly and arbitrarily discriminated against for positions that would otherwise be open to anyone, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

This is false, they are being prohibited for positions that they are by definition unqualified for, because the position requires practicing catholics, in good standing, and in submission to the dogma of the church. Homosexuals, divorcees, buddhists, muslims, protestants, trans-people, etc., would likewise not apply, so its not specific, its based solely on whether one meets the criteria as defined by the church since it is a church school.


No, I explained why their feelings are relevant.

This point about dogma, as I said, only relates to an discussion on whether or not these Catholics adhere to certain conservative interpretations.

It does not change the existence of negative impact.
#14986221
ness31 wrote:I agree with PoD also about religious schools not receiving funding from the state.


Oddly enough, everyone agrees with him on that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless all teachers in Australian Catholic schools are also clergy, my distinction is relevant.


That would have to be assessed on a school-to-school basis, plus the distinction fails on the grounds that educating baptized members of God's people can be regarded as a ministerial obligation under the purview of the church by many denominations; thus teaching qualifications would be defined by doctrinal congruence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How so?


Feel free to refer such questions to the appropriate thread. This is the sixth time I have challenged you to debate this, feel free to run away again if you wish.

Pants-of-dog wrote:o. Christians have the single largest share of any group, at slightly over 50%.


Christians aren't a denomination. Your error here was already addressed. Feel free to provide evidence for your counter-claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I explained why their feelings are relevant.This point about dogma, as I said, only relates to an discussion on whether or not these Catholics adhere to certain conservative interpretations.It does not change the existence of negative impact.


1. No, its not a matter of interpretation, this is official Catholic dogma. Period.

2. If this dogma defines the qualifications, then their feelings are irrelevant by definition.


3. You previously said "harm." now you say "negative impact."

Please define both terms as it appears you are using them in an ambiguous (and therefore fallacious) manner. Thanks.
#14986228
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Oddly enough, everyone agrees with him on that.

That would have to be assessed on a school-to-school basis, plus the distinction fails on the grounds that educating baptized members of God's people can be regarded as a ministerial obligation under the purview of the church by many denominations; thus teaching qualifications would be defined by doctrinal congruence.


Sure.

If there is an argument here, you now know what you need to do make it.

Feel free to refer such questions to the appropriate thread. This is the sixth time I have challenged you to debate this, feel free to run away again if you wish.


I already debated this with Eran, Phred, and Solarcross when he was going by taxizen.

And where we left off was them failing to explain why animals do not own their food but humans do.

Christians aren't a denomination. Your error here was already addressed. Feel free to provide evidence for your counter-claim. Thanks.


I never said Christians were a denomination.

You were the one who brought up denominations.

1. No, its not a matter of interpretation, this is official Catholic dogma. Period.

2. If this dogma defines the qualifications, then their feelings are irrelevant by definition.

3. You previously said "harm." now you say "negative impact."

Please define both terms as it appears you are using them in an ambiguous (and therefore fallacious) manner. Thanks.


Harm and negative impact are synonymous for the purposes of the argument.

Your argument does not contradict the fact that hetting fired or expelled is a negative impact.

Nor does it refute the fact that LGBTQ people can and do teach and study in Catholic schools.

Since these are the facts on which my argument rests, your criticism of another point does not affect my argument.
#14986237
ness31 wrote:We live in such crude times. People didn’t feel the need to splash their sexual preferences all over the place in the past. And ‘sexuality’ of any sort in schools among students was frowned on.

We just live in a crude time where people have no decorum. That’s what it boils down to.


From another perspective, we could say that we live in enlightened times. People used to feel the need to oppress each other because of sexual preferences all over the place in the past. And ‘equality’ of any sort in schools among students was frowned on.

We just live in a liberated time where people have no reason to hide who they are. That’s what it boils down to.

:)
#14986240
Pants-of-dog wrote:
From another perspective, we could say that we live in enlightened times. People used to feel the need to oppress each other because of sexual preferences all over the place in the past. And ‘equality’ of any sort in schools among students was frowned on.

We just live in a liberated time where people have no reason to hide who they are. That’s what it boils down to.

:)


Yes, we could say that.

We don’t want anyone being uncomfortable for that would be distressing. Adversity under any circumstances is a no no. Our children will learn strength of character from an App.
#14986252
ness31 wrote:Yes, we could say that.

We don’t want anyone being uncomfortable for that would be distressing. Adversity under any circumstances is a no no. Our children will learn strength of character from an App.


Do you think that discrimination is character building and therefore a good thing?
#14986254
SolarCross wrote:what is at stake is freedom of association.


That's basically what I hinted at in a previous post.

For me, when we say freedom of religion, I see it closely linked to freedom of assembly/association. After all, a religion is just a kind of association of people. THis is why I'm not so quick to say "Fuck religion" even though I really do want to say "fuck religion!" :lol:
#14986268
The gay thing is just bigotry in disguised by some christians.
They can overlook:
rape is fine, you just have to marry your victim
slavery is fine, especially if your slaves are not Israelites, but even then you can keep slaves for 6 years (caveats apply)
people working on the Sabbath. Punishment? death
Adultery? death if you are a woman if you are a man only if you did it with a married woman...
Graven image?
Boiling goat in its mother's milk? (WHO DID THIS!) :lol:
Mixing cotton with linen? Oh no dear lord please save its poor soul
Eating lobster? You dirty bastard!
:lol:
It is obvious bigotry, they ignore all of this nonsensical shit and call it "poetic" or "metaphor" or whatnot... why not call their hate for gays "poetic" the same fking way and let people live their lives? Oh I know why... bigotry, hate and ignorance that's why.
#14986271
ness31 wrote:Discrimination happens all the time. Pretending it doesn’t exist is disingenuous.


Yes, I completely agree.

But by all means, go ahead and force people not to discriminate. I’m sure it will work wonders.


Thank you, I will, and many civil rights movements and human rights movements have done wonders!
#14986283
What do you want to see PoD? The complete and utter destruction of the church? Because that seems like the lefts aim for a long while now.
There is no magic in your kind of world, not even a skerrick of kind deception.
Children belong to the state like the property they actually are and we are all painfully aware of our Capitis diminutio maxima, media or minima.
#14986293
If churches were destroyed, the kids would miss their playgroup/mini service, and my mother would not know what to do on Sunday mornings. And because of these people, I know that Christianity is compatible with egalitarian views on LGBTQ people.

And because of that, I would like to see churches be unable to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Or at least, be unable to do so with impunity.
#14986294
Rancid wrote:@Paddy14....

You have something to add? :)


There is a reason my OP was in the form of a question, and maybe I will have something important to add when I have read all the arguments.

I guess my main concern is that the PM seems to want legislation which would exempt religious schools from current federal anti-discrimination laws. I'm not gay and I don't go to a Catholic school, so it doesn't directly affect me, but the possibility exists that some kid who has been at his school for like years can be expelled if he admits, or someone finds out and tells the school, that he is gay. He will lose all his school mates, and have to start again at a state school. I don't think that's fair.

I'm still not totally sure what I believe and don't believe, and I don't want anyone to be stopped from practising their beliefs, but I don't want those beliefs to affect anyone else who may or may not share them. We have anti-discrimination laws for a good reason.

And Lol, no I didn't go AWOL - I just got back from school, and while I sometimes post from class - we are not allowed to do social stuff in class.

@SueDeNîmes , I like my explanation much better[…]

That is the essence of racism POD. You are judgi[…]

Surely they wouldn't even want overwhelming abu[…]

Election 2020

Yes, I'm partially jerking your chain. Even if I […]