|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
If you won't introduce Secular Humanists, then just substitute it for any secular company, like the ACLU, who would rather die before they hired a known Christian zealot. And your evidence for this is?
Its not about a 'club' its about what is going to work best. Can you be a youth pastor and atheist at the same time? It doesn't really work out too well for any one. Likewise, could a conservative Christian work for the ACLU when all of ACLU cases are diametrically opposite to Judeo-Christian morals? What I'm trying to say is that its not discrimination, its common sense. The first example is a complete strawman. No one is proposing forcing churches to hire atheists as their youth pastors. The second example is a little trickier. I think the question is more would a conservative Christian work for the ACLU. Most likely, not. But I doubt you could find evidence for a conservative Christian being denied a job at the ACLU simply for being a conservative Christian unless, of course, his ideology would impede him from doing his job. You might find that there are conservative Christians who actually believe in the Establishment Clause and in civil liberties and in defending the defenseless and would be able to their job there quite well. I'm not sure if there are any self-described conservative Christians working there, but it could happen. That's beside the point, tho. The point is that organizations like the Salvation Army want to have everyone in their company from their bell ringers to their clothes distributors to their janitors be a Christian. The analogy to the ACLU would have to be the same. The point also is that under Bush we have all these "faith based" organizations getting money from the government and being allowed to discriminate based on religion (which is a federally protected class) and sexual orientation (which is not, but it is protected in some cities). The point is that if you take money from the government (i.e. taxpayers), then you should have to abide by said government's discrimination laws. If you do not want to abide by the government's discrimination laws, then DO NOT TAKE OUR MONEY!
Its not ambiguous at all, as the plaintiff alleges that religious content, like "Intro to Buddhism" and "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" were allowed. That's enough to at least raise a few eyebrows. "I think the university has the right to require entering students to have a foundation on the subjects the university thinks help provide a preparation for higher education," he said "But I think the schools have a point when they say other courses from other institutions are allowed in, but when a course has 'Christian' in the title, it seems to raise a red flag." -Charles Haynes My question is were the "Intro to Buddhism" and the "Western Civ - the Jewish Experience" allowed as elective credits? I would think that the former would have to be, but the latter - was it used as a history credit? If so, I do see the problem. If not, the issue then becomes valid. Taking a course on "Christianity throughout History" is a perfectly acceptable elective course and I would even like to see such classes and more in public schools, however, taking such a narrowly defined view of history as their sole education in the topic can become problematic once s/he enters a public university setting, especially if the text was also revisionist. I've been meaning to get a copy of America's Providential History and other texts of the sort and once I do I can probably get into more detail about this debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, do you know what the "concordat" signed in 1933 by Pope Pius XII was?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
The main points of the concordat are The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2) Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4) The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13) The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "(...) Ich schwre und verspreche, die verfassungsmssig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen (...)" ("I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it") (Article 16) State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18) Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22). Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31) Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32) Reichskonkordat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
From your link:
There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of your already-morally-questionable neutrality argument. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
I do not care that any Cardinal had confidence in Germany under Hitler. Hitler proved that this Cardinal's confidence was mis-placed, and he fooled many, many people in the same way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Thank you anglagard. I don't need links, just showing that the depth and scope of the crimes committed in war-time Germany were not immediately known by anyone, not even the pope. While he (Pius XII)did speak out against the atrocities of war in general, no one of the time period seems to have fully described the situation in the terms which we use today.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Hitler proved that this Cardinal's confidence was mis-placed, and he fooled many, many people in the same way. I'm still confused as to how the church managed to be fooled into thinking the holocaust wasn't going on, but still send the Pope on a one-man rescue mission, a la Rambo, to single-handedly save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the holocaust. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Forgive me for nosing in since I have only been a lurker as far as this thread is concern, but I could have sworn your entire argument this whole time rested on the basis that the church neither endorsed nor condemned the nazis and their actions. Now, someone presented evidence from your own link that seemed to show that the church did endorse the nazi regime, which you then responded that the trust was misplaced.
Furthermore, you stated yourself that the church, just like everybody else, had no idea murderous persecution and genocide was being committed and you turned around and proudly proclaimed that the church tried to save hundreds of thousands of jews. So, which is it? I'm confused. So, do you or do you not want to say that the church endorsed the nazi regime (even if it was misplaced) and do you or do you not want to say that the church had at least some knowledge of wide scale persecution of the jews taking place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
TazmanianDevil writes: Furthermore, you stated yourself that the church, just like everybody else, had no idea murderous persecution and genocide was being committed and you turned around and proudly proclaimed that the church tried to save hundreds of thousands of jews. I did not proclaim a thing. I provided a link to Rabbi Dalin's book review to exemplify that in history, there are facts, and in histories, there are interpretations. These are biases and we won't be rid of them. Motive must be ascribed to character, and I have no more authority to tell you of the motive for the Reichskonkordat than the best scholars on the subject do, surely not. I will not even allow you any fun with my biases. I have told you the truth, in both versions.. Just remember there is no black or white, and I will be content. You people make me laugh. Someone accuses the church of racism, provides a link as 'evidence' which is countered quite readily by other links and even the disatisfaction of the author himself, the scholars can't agree on anything, and you want to get on ME for ambiguity. History is ambiguous, Taz, the truth is waiting. Go find it. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I provided a link to Rabbi Dalin's book review to exemplify that in history, there are facts, and in histories, there are interpretations. I see. Those 700,000 people may or may not have actually been saved by the church, in reality. But it's fun to interpret history in such a way that they were. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Someone accuses the church of racism, provides a link as 'evidence' which is countered quite readily by other links and even the disatisfaction of the author himself, and then you want to get on me for being ambiguous. How many acts of racism does it take to make a racist? If a particular act is "ambiguous" isn't that cause for self-examination rather than knee-jerk self-defense? Instead of trying to bury all possible wrong-doing in a mountain of ambiguity, why not direct your energy toward helping the Church get it's house in order? You can't clean house if you refuse to acknowledge the dirt. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Dan writes: I see. Those 700,000 people may or may not have actually been saved by the church, in reality. But it's fun to interpret history in such a way that they were. Correct. In fact, there is much speculation that the Vatican was collecting Jews for an historic re-enactment of the Crucifixion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'm asking you now. Did the church endorse the nazis or not? Did the church know about the persecutions of jews and other "outcasts" or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: How many acts of racism does it take to make a racist? And how many acts of magnanimity does it take to un-make one?
If a particular act is "ambiguous" isn't that cause for self-examination rather than knee-jerk self-defense? No need to assume an act was ambiguous just because historians can't behave any better collectively. You are always welcome to choose sides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: How many acts of racism does it take to make a racist? And how many acts of magnanimity does it take to un-make one? It doesn't work that way. You have to do your best to undo the bad acts, not just cover them up with good ones. You can't just trample the hungry on your way to heal the sick. You need to clean the house, not just paint over the dirt. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024