Won't this open a can of worms if a homosexual gets fired from their workplace for being homosexual?

-PB

Religion is supposed to be about love, understanding and forgiveness not hate marginalization and discrimination...pathetic.

Not all religions/churches of Christ discriminate against homosexuals. My church openly accepts gay members, and am sure that we will have gay weddings when legalized. Don't tar and feather us all with one brush, turbo.

Not all religions/churches of Christ discriminate against homosexuals. My church openly accepts gay members, and am sure that we will have gay weddings when legalized. Don't tar and feather us all with one brush, turbo.

Some discrimination can be valid, in some circumstances there can be very valid reasons why this would be appropriate.

What circumstances would make this appropriate, Joffa?

I can see where it could be appropriate for a counselling service to require a female to perform a role as a domestic violence counsellor for battered women, or perhaps a female as a rape counsellor...now this can also work in reverse where a male may be appropriate for those roles because the clients are male.

I am not condoning discrimination as my first post indicates, but I do see where there may be circumstances where special needs requirements can play a role.

why does this provoke you guys so much?
It isn't that surprising and many other companies would do similiar things if they were allowed to.

I have no problem with religions or religious people discriminating based on what they believe in

Mormons believe that Black people are Black because of their sins. Would it be OK if the LDS Church refused to employ people with dark skin because it's their religious belief?

No, that's where the government needs to step in. The religion can believe whatever the hell they like, but when it leads to discrimination that is legislated against everywhere else, then the religion should have no right to be treated differently.

Would a person with dark skin really want a job with such an organisation? (not trying to say they're in the wrong in any way)

Didn't Italy within the last week do something to support the rights of gay marriage?

That's amazing, considering the major religion in Italy is against anyone homosexual.

Good on Italy, for what should be, a start to other countries doing the right thing.

Seriously though, the christian lobby are stupid and do themselves no favours with this kind of shit, and Gillard has absolutely no right what so ever to be supporting them or to be against gay marriage, the fact she is just goes to show just how much of a puppet she is rather then a principaled Prime Minister.

Not all religions/churches of Christ discriminate against homosexuals. My church openly accepts gay members, and am sure that we will have gay weddings when legalized. Don't tar and feather us all with one brush, turbo.

Won't this open a can of worms if a homosexual gets fired from their workplace for being homosexual?

I have nothing against religious people, just religious extremists. Same goes for atheist extremists.

I'm surprised discrimination is still such a strong presence in society. If you're nice to me I'm nice to you, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. I wish more people shared this view.

What's an "Atheist Extremist"?

What's an "Atheist Extremist"?

The idea is that it protects homosexuals from being fired from their jobs while allowing religious organisations to protect their beliefs. Just like notorganic (not to mention the rest of you) wants his beliefs to be protected, the same right should be afforded to them.

This. I see we're getting our "all religion is evil, roll out the hate speeches" on again. ](*,)

Religion often brings it upon itself with draconian laws and a army of loud mouthed fundamentalists.

I see the theory behind this but think it will not be effective where intended and will only help marginalize homosexuals further.

Loudmouth fundamentalist atheists don't seem to be in short supply either, really.

Tbh, religion is being increasingly marginalised in society already and they should be afforded the same liberties.

The problem is that the current laws allow for homosexuals to take legal action against religious organisations for 'descriminating' against them. And everyone's taking their usual short-sighted stance of "I don't care who gets hurt, just don't hurt the poofers' feelings" in an attempt to seem like they're 'politically correct'.

It's not like the churches are being given the right to hunt homosexuals down in the street, simply that they retain the right to reject the notion of gay marriage or gay parishioners in their congregation if that's their belief. If anything it makes the pathway to gay marriage easier and clearer as it gives them the right to say "we disagree with gay marriage" and we can say "That's your right. Good on you, now shut up, we're allowing gay marriage".

This will allow them to keep to their bigoted beliefs without fear of legal persecution while the rest of the world moves on around them rather than having this small minority continue to hold up the implementation of gay marriage in this country.

Edited by afromanGT: 16/1/2013 06:38:51 PM

You still haven't explained what an Atheist "fundamentalist" is, by the way.

What scripture or moral guidance system which could be adopted by an atheist could be termed fundamental? That's just me though.

Sorry, I didn't realise I was actually being addressed by the question. I just saw the opportunity to return the favour of your level of cheap shot.

My interpretation would be people who take the concept of atheism and judgemental view of religion to the extreme. The kind of people who don't budge on their opinion and rely on the core premise of atheism. And as such, when they are confronted with a religious opinion repeat over and over words to the effect of "THERE IS NO GOD! YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE A PLAGUE ON SOCIETY!" much the way the likes of notorganic does.

Sorry, I didn't realise I was actually being addressed by the question. I just saw the opportunity to return the favour of your level of cheap shot.

My interpretation would be people who take the concept of atheism and judgemental view of religion to the extreme. The kind of people who don't budge on their opinion and rely on the core premise of atheism. And as such, when they are confronted with a religious opinion repeat over and over words to the effect of "THERE IS NO GOD! YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE A PLAGUE ON SOCIETY!" much the way the likes of notorganic does.

I see, I get you now. Militant atheism is what i've heard what you've described coined as.

By definition it's fundamentalism. Strict adherence to the core principles of the 'doctrine' of the belief.

Religion is supposed to be about love, understanding and forgiveness not hate marginalization and discrimination...pathetic.

A better question would be why a homosexual is applying to be working within a catholic organisation.

By definition it's fundamentalism. Strict adherence to the core principles of the 'doctrine' of the belief.

Because a job is a fucking job?...

Are you serious?!

-PB

I'm with Afro on this one, the only exception being school teachers, i can see reason for them atleast trying to get a job with the Catholic system.

Because a job is a fucking job?...

Are you serious?!

-PB

By definition there's no belief. Atheism is a lack of belief (or faith) in anything.

I will never understand how people outside of faiths can tell religions and religious people what they are 'supposed to be about

This.

X2 the amount of hubris coming out of the non believers about religion makes me so angry . But I keep quiet because that's their right to express their views b

The social Gospel espoused by Jesus and Catholic social teaching place a heavy emphasis on the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual works of mercy, namely the support and concern for the sick, the poor and the afflicted. Church teaching calls for a preferential option for the poor while canon law prescribes that "The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor."

The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows:


Corporal Works of Mercy
1. To feed the hungry.
2. To give drink to the thirsty.
3. To clothe the naked.
4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless).
5. To visit the sick.
6. To ransom the captive.
7. To bury the dead.


Spiritual Works of Mercy

1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To counsel the doubtful
3. To admonish sinners.
4. To bear wrongs patiently.
5. To forgive offences willingly.
6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To pray for both the living and the dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Doctrine

can you tell me a religon that isn't about love, understanding and forgiveness?

The problem isn't the non believers, as people can believe what they like...it is those who try and claim a moral or superior ground over other people that I take umbrage with...and with respect the hubris flows both ways.

I know the hubris is from both sides ,sadly the people who are caught in The middle like you and I have to cop the shit . I've heard someone say loudly when I was with my daughter And saw my rosary .do you molest your child you pig. I walked away because I didn't want to make her happy

Secular critics argue that religious organisations such as faith-based schools, especially Catholic schools, should not have the right to discriminate in relation to who they enrol and who they employ.

Wrong. One of the fundamental rights in any democratic and open society is freedom of religion.

Faith-based schools, by their very nature, are there to uphold and teach the spiritual values and morality embodied in their religion. If freedom of religion is to have any meaning, then it follows that schools should have the power to discriminate in relation to who they enrol and who they employ.

The religious nature of such schools explains why they are so attractive and popular with increasing numbers of parents.

When it comes to school choice, a 2004 survey by the Australian Council for Educational Research concludes that a very important factor is ''the extent to which the school embraced traditional values to do with discipline, religious or moral values, the traditions of the school itself, and requirement that a uniform be worn''.

A second survey, commissioned by Independent Schools Queensland, also reveals that when parents were asked the reason for choosing a particular school, religious affiliation was the most important.

Faith-based schools are not secular schools. For the 1700 or so Catholic schools in Australia that enrol more than 20 per cent of primary and secondary students, this means that the school, its curriculum, its staff and the students enrolled should uphold and commit themselves to the church's teachings.

That such is the case shouldn't surprise. Under the new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has assured faith-based organisations they will maintain their ''freedom'' to discriminate against homosexuals and others who do not adhere to their faith. As publicly stated by the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria: ''Our schools promote a particular view of the person, the community, the nation and the world centred on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, and they form an integral part of the church community in which all generations live, worship and grow together.''

Those seeking to work or those seeking to enrol children in such schools can be in no doubt as to the religious nature of such schools and that there is a requirement, as members of the school community, to live according to the tenets on which the school is based.

And it is wrong to argue that the freedom to discriminate should apply to only those teaching religious instruction in faith-based schools. Education, as argued by Brian Crittenden, the one-time head of the School of Education at La Trobe University, is inherently concerned with moral development.

All subjects, as well as what is known as the hidden curriculum involving a school's institutional practices and culture, contribute to that moral development. It is also true that teachers, regardless of their subject expertise, are role models and can have a significant and lasting impact on their students.

It should also be noted, in relation to discrimination, that not all rights are absolute and there are occasions when particular rights have to be qualified or curtailed. For many years, feminists have argued that women's health centres should be able to discriminate against men by denying membership.

More recently, the argument has been put that swimming pools should have the freedom to restrict entry on particular days or at a particular time to accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim women.

In relation to education, the reality is that several state and international covenants and agreements argue that parents must have the right to choose schools that uphold their religious beliefs.

An international agreement, the Convention against Discrimination in Education, argues parents must be free to choose non-government schools as an alternative to state schools, and that parents' religious beliefs must be respected.

''It is essential to respect the liberty of parents … to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children is in conformity with their own convictions,'' it says.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/schools-practise-what-they-preach-20130116-2ctpf.html#ixzz2IDXRi5yT

Yes. They do have a belief. They believe that there is no god, that is their faith. In essence they categorically believe that there is no god and subsequently that all religion is unequivocally wrong.

That is so incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. A lack of belief is not a belief. You're using negative reasoning.

That's a bit overly pedantic. Most atheists who "lack belief in god" also believe there is no god, and that natural forces are responsible for the universe. That is a faith.

No, that's called Knowledge.

I no longer believe in "god", however at the same time, i'm not so arrogant so as to be sure that I know that there is nothing more then what can be explained by science.

Thats why hardcore athiests annoy me, how can you be so sure that there is nothing more then what science can explain? Science once said that the earth was flat for fuck sake!

Humans simply do not have the knowledge or the mental capacity to comprehend the enormity and fullness of the universe, end of.

See atheists can be deluded too.

I'm not an atheist :lol:

My mistake.

I clearly misread "Please tell me your life story" as "See atheists can be deluded too."

No you just cant comprehend properly.

That's a bit overly pedantic. Most atheists who "lack belief in god" also believe there is no god, and that natural forces are responsible for the universe. That is a faith.

Possibly. I just dislike the assumption that a lack of belief in God means belief in no God. It does not account for people who simply have no beliefs. Its also consequential logic (or lack there of). Lack of belief in something should not mandate belief in another.

Most atheists or most atheists you know? I'd say most atheists I know are getting on with life and observing what is there to observe without making absolutes out of subjective matters.

If you are an atheist, it is YOUR BELIEF that there IS NO GOD. That is all there is to it.

Fellow atheists please note - being rude and disrespectful to other people's beliefs which in no way affect you turns you into the same kind of bigots that you despise in believers.

From wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

A rejection of belief is not a belief. I don't believe in dragons. Is that a belief? No, it's not. Same thing applies.

I can't believe I had to explain this more than once.

Edited by benelsmore: 18/1/2013 02:08:20 PM

From wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

A rejection of belief is not a belief. I don't believe in dragons. Is that a belief? No, it's not. Same thing applies.

I can't believe I had to explain this more than once.

Edited by benelsmore: 18/1/2013 02:08:20 PM

Ok, to paraphrase what you're saying:
"I don't believe in god. I don't not believe there is no god"

Fucking listen to yourself :lol:

By pure definition, YOUR BELIEF is that there is no god.

If you're asked "do you believe in god" you answer "No, I don't believe in god", therefore your belief is that there is no god.

This is still a system of belief.

Well no, we're not asking if you believe you have a hobby #-o

You're saying that not believing in god is not a belief. What is it then? If it's not a belief then why do we use the word 'believe'?

No we're not its simple an analogy to show the flaw in your definition. It is also a way of explaining negative reasoning and why its ridiculous.

It is a lack of beliefs afro. Plain and simple.

Atheism, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is a "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." - it is a belief by name and definition.

What's an "Atheist Extremist"?

Oxford even described a lack of beliefs. What do you not understood about my analogy? You cannot be that dense, seriously.

Replace belief with hobby. Its the same principle and equally ridiculous. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that there are more than two sides to this coin.

So if I asked you "do you believe there is no god?" you would answer "no". Because you don't have any belief. Therefore one could conclude that you are open to the concept of a god. Thus you are agnostic, not an atheist.

It doesn't even remotely mean I am open to any supernatural concept at all.

You're twisting the definition of the word to suit your contention that it's impossible for there to be a fundamentalist atheist, pure and simple.

That's still your belief #-o You have to believe in the concept to agree with the statement. The definition of belief is thus: "an acceptance that something exists or is true".

The statement "there is no god" you accept that this is true. Therefore it is a belief.

Go and actually read up on the terms you're using, lest you look like notorganic.

By definition you are agnostic, not athetist then. ](*,)

I never said I was an atheist you fucking idiot :lol:

Atheism is a lack of beliefs. It by definition cannot be a belief. You accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about when you cannot grasp negative reasoning you idiot.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief, atheism is the belief that a god does not exist.

End argument my ass you're incapable of entertaining anything other than yourown opinion.