Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

I'm not so sure I agree that the Catholic Church has the right to discriminate against a specific class of adoptive parents if their funding is entirely private. I meant to get to that--but I got distracted by the smoke and flames Law regulates adoption agencies and procedures. While religious organizations have been given (wrongly, IMO) the right to discriminate in hiring against those who don't share their religious beliefs (even when staffing publicly funded activities), it seems to me that allowing them to discriminate against a specific class of persons who seek those services is another matter. Would that not allow some white supremacy church group to accept federal funds to run a soup kitchen and then refuse to serve people of color?In the case of orphans, the government is regulating the adoption process, acting as a guardian: to allow otherwise banned discrimination is contrary to the government's obligations to protect the equal rights of all its citizens and to protect the orphaned children against indoctrination by those providing the services.The Catholic Church has a history here: of, among other things, placing Jewish orphans with Catholic families during the Holocaust, then baptizing them and refusing to return them to the Jewish families/communities afterwards. No doubt workers in Catholic adoption agencies are good, well-intentioned people, but the Church has an institutional interest in self-propagation that is not necessarily congruent with the best interests of the children or of sociey.Governmental regulation of adoption agencies should not allow discrimination in the delivery of services to orphans or adoptive parents. A religious belief that the discrimination is just is an inadequate rationale.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Excuse my quote mining for just a moment for I will be addressing your and others' points after I read through the entire thread. I just had to comment on this. This is one of the silliest arguments I have heard in the gay adoption debates (and in the homosexual marriage/raising natural kids debates, too).Kids get teased for many, many things.Should we not allow lower class people to adopt because their kids will get teased and potentially discriminated against for being poor?Should we not allow vegetarians to adopt because their kids might get teased for not eating meat?Should we not allow Muslims to adopt and raise their kids with Islam because they might be teased or discriminated against? Or any other religious "minority" for that matter?Should we not allow disabled people to adopt because their kids might get teased?Should we not allow people who move alot to adopt because their kids will continually have to prove themselves and will probably get teased for being "the new kid?"I could go on and on.How about this? My real name is Pepper. I got teased mercilessly as a child because of the name my parents chose for me. Should I have been taken away from them? We were pretty poor, too, so I got teased for my clothes and where I lived. I was teased for my freckles. I was teased for being intelligent. I was teased for alot of things.Let's say I was adopted as an infant and my working class parents wanted to call me Pepper. Should I have been denied a loving home just because I would grow up poor and oddly named and therefore subject to teasing?I have found that teasing (mostly) makes one stronger and helps one to develop empathy and sympathy towards others.Is that what people who oppose gay adoptions are afraid of? That kids growing up in a house with two mommies or two daddies will have a sense of acceptance for homosexuals (or other oppressed groups)? There has been no research that suggests that kids growing up in a homosexual household are deprived in any way compared to other kids, so I can think of no other reason besides irrational hatred to deny orphaned/abandoned/abused/neglected children a stable, loving home.Would you condone an adoption agency that refused to place kids with Christians? Would you fight for their right to discriminate in such a way?

Barring a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "adultery," I ask the following questions:What is the "mystery" surrounding human reproduction? Is it different from non-human (sexual) reproduction? Has the "mystery" not been explained to your satisfaction through science?How is a homosexual act in and of itself not respectful of the human body?What is the human body's design?We don't seem to have been designed very well with regards to our upright locomotion. However, my arms are "designed" at just the right length to touch myself. My "designed" brain and the hormones it secretes cause me to desire sexual contact (my genes and/or responses to visual/pheremonal stimuli cause me to desire such contact with women). The "design" of which you speak is obvious to everyone, but only religion puts restraints on how to use the "design".How is the harmony between a man and a woman different than between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Unless you are concerned with puzzle pieces (and different puzzles provide different pieces), harmony speaks to me of love and unity with another person. Not crude analogies concerning body parts.How are the models of "strength and tenderness" compromised in a homosexual relationship? Do you really think that two women will only coddle their children and teach them only tenderness and nurturing and docility?Do you think that two men will only teach their children strength and stoicism and dominance?Do you buy into such stereotypes? Do you not know any strong women or nurturing men? So all the infertile couples who can "only dream of the option" do not do anything of value?I agree that life is precious. I would also say that life extends beyond birth. Those who would take in someone else's "creation" and love her and care for her and provide her with a home does just as much an "ultimate good" as the people who brought that child into the world.P.S. Homosexuals can reproduce...only in the same ways that infertile couple can. Should infertile couples never have sex because they cannot have children as they were "designed?" Should they not be able to adopt because they are commiting "adultery" by having lust without the possibility of bearing children? The problem is, I do see the beauty in the "harmonious flow of life," but I don't only see it as beautiful because it was "meant to be" through heterosexual sex. I see beauty and harmony in love, in progress, in caring for and helping others. I may not have my own children (I dunno...I am still up in the air, but I feel I will adopt) but I will seek out and accept children when I feel I am ready to give them my unconditional emotional and financial support. Raising a new generation is raising a new generation regardless of whether or not they are my "flesh and blood."Last but not least: So, you leave out parts of the Bible because you are not an "Old Testament Jew" but you adhere to the original commandments given to the Hebrews?God's law is God's law is it not?

These things are beautiful because they are 'what is meant to be'. How we use our abilities to love, to progress, and to care for others, is still a choice. No good choice should negate something else that was meant to be, like procreation. If compromise is our only option, adoptiong to homosexuals is not the worst of all possibilities.I have said all I mean to say on the issue. I am very proud of the churches who are not bullied by secular standards, and I expect that if they are state-funded operations, that they will be allowed to relinquish their duties without further insult. I have had many friends from the gay and lesbian community who are aware of my religion and not threatened by me as a person. There is no antagonism, only difference, and we are all capable of seeing beyond difference to the person beneath.

God's law is God's law. It does not come from the Bible, but from our hearts. It is written in stone and locked in the ark of each one of us.Jews have laws, Catholics have laws, and these pertain to the beliefs and the culture of the people. They should not be confused with the commandments.

I'm pretty certain that here in the UK no one is allowed to discriminate when hiring. My company sent all its employees on an anti-discrimination course to make sure everyone was aware of the rules and implications, and it was spelt out pretty clearly that even religious institutions were not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion and sexuality when hiring staff.The only exception to this was in positions where the role had a specific (justifiable) requirement for the person to be of a certain religion (such as priests, vicars, bishops etc), but it did not extend any further than that. I don't know how far it has been tested in court, but it would be illegal for a catholic adoption agency to refuse to hire a homosexual Jew simply because the person wasn't a catholic or a heterosexual.

In fact, as I understand it, they wouldn't be able to discriminate for any reason as long as they receive public funds. However, private organizations not receiving tax monies are pretty much free to do as they please. Note well that private entities deemed to provide public services (as you mentioned, I think) also fall under the anti-discrimination laws (restaurants, hotels, transportation services, etc). Again, however, the RCC would seem to have a loophole here - if they are offering private adoption services to church members only - then they can do pretty much whatever they want. They only ran afoul of the law if they supposedly provide services to the general public. This also goes along with your "self-propagation" comment. Or at least, that's how I understand the situation. I have been known to be wrong, on occasion , especially where legal issues are concerned.

Sad it is to say that here in the U.S., Land of the Free, Inc., religious institution employers are allowed to discriminate based on the religious beliefs of the prospective employee.Now, if this were a matter of hiring a priest, preacher or snake handler, that would be perfectly understandable: one wants true hypocrisy, after all, not the ersatz stuff. Rather, the license to discriminate based on religious conviction covers all positions, sacred or secular, even the bookkeeper and the housecleaner.But wait--there's more.It is not enough to believe. The religious institution employer may also discharge employees because their lifestyle is considered contradictory to their religious belief, even if the employee shares that belief in general but disagrees on the lifestyle issue in question: in other words, lesbians and gays are fair game. There has not yet been a general purge of thieves, adulterers, onanists, dishonorers of parents, etc.But wait--there's more.These religious institution employers can do all these things even in the context of spending taxpayer money for charitable purposes.This is the true bloody heart of Bush's "faith-based initiatives."I'm glad things are better there. Sorry about that tea party affair.Funny how things work out.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Religious institution employers? What exactly is that? If a "religious institution employer" constitutes like a full time employee of a church, then shouldn't they be a Christian? How well would it work for a Christian to join the Secular Humanists for America? It doesn't make any sense, nor would they allow a Christian to join for the same exact reason you're getting huffy over. Something tells me you wouldn't fuss about though, or about this. National Endowment for the Arts is a federally subsidized program where an "artist" placed her pickled fetus in a jar on display or where a crucifix was submerged in a urine-filled jar... Yeah, there's money well spent. But you have an issue with charity?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I don't know how it works in the US, but over here the criteria for picking candidates for a job have to be relevent to the candidates ability to perform the job. You can't say 'no non-christians' without first proving why non-christians would be unable to perform the duties. In the case of priests, vicars, bishops, and probably even sunday-school teachers it is reasonable to assume that 'being christian' is a valid criteria for the job. For any other job it's not. You seem to have gone off on a tangent here. In the quote above we were talking about employer/employee relationships. Now we seem to be talking about membership to a private club; a completely different matter. I see no problem with a church denying someone membership of their 'club' if the person doesn't meet the criteria. Employment isn't membership within a club though, it is goverened by legal rules (at least here in the UK, I have no idea about the US).If however you actually meant something along the lines of 'How well would it work for a Christian to seek employment by the Secular Humanists for America?' then my position would be consistent with above. If 'being a Christian' has no bearing on the candidates ability to perform the role being applied for then christians should not be discriminated against. I'd stand up for a christians right to equal employment opportunities as much as a non-christians. (link not reproduced)That article really doesn't make the situatin clear. Basically the universtiy has declared that the course "Christianity's Influence on American History" does not meet the requirements to gain admittance to the University. The article does not explain why it fails to meet the criteria. Does the course teach bogus history? Does the course lack educational content? What skills does the course teach its students? I imagine if the students sit and listen to someone without putting in any input of their own then they aren't learning any skills at all that would help with a degree course. All of these are valid reasons to reject a course (any course).On the other hand, if the only reason the course is rejected is that it has the word 'Christianity' in the title then absolutely, that would be an unfair reason to dismiss the course. It should be judged on its educational content like all other courses.When talking about a biology course that was rejected it quoted the blurb from the front of the textbook used: Obviously it is clear that this course is unsuitable for people who want to enter a place of learning. Has the other course been rejected on similar grounds? I'd be interested to find out.So again, if the university is rejecting courses because they are 'pro-christianity' then that is bad. If it is rejected courses because they fail to meet educational standards, then that is good. From that article it seems to be the latter in at least some cases, but there really isn't enough information to be sure. I tend to dislike all art, especially modern art. I'll stay out of the art-appreciation debate! Edited by happy_atheist, : I missed the last comment about art.

"this"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/...051127/news_1n27ucsuit.htmlIs about a lawsuit brought by students that are trying to substitute an alternate course of their choosing for one required by the university for admission. The university position is clear:

quote:

---

UC lawyers say Calvary Chapel students are free to study as they choose, but they still must take courses approved by the university system - or alternately take an SAT subject test - to gain admission to one of the UC's 10 campuses.

---

Either take the required courses like everyone else or take the SAT on the subject material. If they cannot pass the SAT on the subject material then there is no issue eh? If they can pass the SAT on the subject material then there is no issue eh? This is what every home schooled child is up against too.It is the role of the school teaching the course to get it accredited with the universities to count for admission requirements. It is not the role of students trying to use a non-accredited course in place of an accredited course to change admission standards. If their high school (Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta) misrepresented the course to them and they took it thinking it filled a university requirement, then their suit is properly with Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta not the university.That is not discrimination, that is just simple academic standards.

quote:

---

"This appears to be coming in as the first wave in an assault," said Barmak Nassirian, an official with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, who sees the lawsuit as an effort by a special-interest group to improperly shape admissions requirements.

---

I would expect that if the requirement was to take an accredited course in american history, and a student took a course titled "The Role of Thomas Jefferson in American History" that it would NOT meet that requirement, even though Jefferson had a bigger role in american history than christianity.

quote:

---

The complaint, pushed by the Association of Christian Schools International, alleges the university's decision violates the First Amendment religious-practice rights of the students, including two who plan to attend UC San Diego.

​

The lawsuit "is one piece of the culture war that is ongoing in our country for a number of years," said Robert Tyler, who represents the students and heads the group Advocates for Faith and Freedom. "It's important for our clients to take a stand at this time to prevent the intolerance of the UC and to prevent them from attempting to secularize private Christian schools."

---

There goes the loony right trying to re-write history and academic standards ... and push a political religious agenda.Trying to force the admission of students that don't meet academic standards because they are religious is trying to cause discrimination based on being religious.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't think that churches should be in adoption programs from the get-go.Should such an agency have to decide between two couples, one {in church} and one not, I cannot see them making an unbiased decision on what is best for the child.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Exactly my point. Which is why I ask Omni to identify what exactly a "Religious Institution Employer" constitutes.

quote:

---

How well would it work for a Christian to join the Secular Humanists for America?

---

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. 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. Right, I'm not talking about very specific employment that is specifically geared to either something religious or explicitly secular in nature where hired someone of the exact opposite beliefs simply wouldn't find cohesion for many reasons. If Omni was referring to, say, a CEO of a company who in his personal life is an avowed Christian, hears of someone in his company that is a staunch atheist and fires them over it, yes, that is 100% discrimination. The difference is that the company is not religious in nature and therefore bears no reflection towards it. So firing someone over their personal beliefs is some sort of vendetta for disagreeing with their lifestyle. But, if a Christian applied for a job at the ACLU, it just wouldn't work out because its identifiably atheist. Likewise, if an atheist wanted to apply as youth pastor, his/her message would conflict with everything that church supports. That isn't discrimination, that's using your brain. 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 I agree. That's the worst disclaimer I've ever heard. Let the students decide if its a crock or not. Well, I like art. And I'd like to think I have a broad range of appreciation. However, the term "art" is so loose these days that someone has tried to pass off defecation with a French flag stuck in the middle as art. A fetus placed in a formaldehyde-filled jar and a crucifix placed in a urine-filled jar is somehow considered art.
Furthermore, why on earth should the federal government, whose job is very defined in the Constitution, subsidizing an art program???

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

In fact, many Christians do work for the ACLU, or have tried cases on their behalf, or have even been represented by the ACLU. I think we established that religious clergy probably had to cleave to the religion they were going to be employed to service; but are you asking if someone can be an atheist and work with teens and children?Of course. What's he gonna do? Eat them? Grow up, NJ. I wasn't aware that standing up for civil rights against government encroachment was diametrically opposed to "Judeo-Christian morals", but I guess I could have gathered that from the actions of the Bush administration. Nonetheless, again, you're misrepresenting the ACLU - a common tactic by conservatives.For instance, Brown V. Board of Education, which eliminated segregated schools, was decided in part by an amicus brief from the ACLU. Ending slavery is opposed to Christian morals?The ACLU argued against banning interracial marriage, successfully, in Loving V. Virginia - ending racism is opposed to Christian morality? Even conservative hero Oliver North was defended by the ACLU, due to the coerced testimony that tainted his trial. Can we have a new rule? If you've been defended by the ACLU (like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have) you don't get to trash-talk the ACLU. Again, the ACLU has no policy discriminating against Christians or any other religions, they do not take a position of atheism. They only advocate government secularism, which is the only way a religiously plural society survives. Fair enough. If that's the discussion you want to have - should the Federal government subsidize art - that's fine. Personally I think the arts need patronage, and the amount they spend on the NEA is a ridiculously low compared to things like farm subsidies and, oh, let's see, how about the failing Iraq war?But you started out with another position - "should the Federal government subsidize art I don't like?" - and that's an idiotic position. Why do you get to be the arbiter of what art is good and what art is bad?

Again, it depends on the job position. For example, religious beliefs would not get in the way of a secretary doing his/her job. Being Christian is not a valid reason to refuse someone a position as a secretary (even at the ACLU). If someone is capable of performing the role they're applying for then they have a right to be considered along with anyone else. As I said, if a role explicitly requires you to be a christian (such as someone preaching christianity), then it's perfectly reasonable to expect applicants to be a christian. I don't know what a youth pastor is exactly, but I imagine it involves mentoring kids in christianity? Perfectly reasonable to expect the applicants to be christian. But both the church and the ACLU will have positions where the applicants religion doesn't affect it. Those are the positions that should be open to anyone. But there's no indication as to why those courses are allowed, and the christian history of america course wasn't. If it's purely because those two courses make no mention of christianity then sure, it shouldn't be allowed. But based purely on the titles of a course it's not at all possible to judge the edcuational value of the course. There was only mention of the one course that wasn't allowed. Does the university have a policy of disallowing all courses with christianity in the title simply because of the christianity? That would certainly be bad. Sure, hopefully they're intelligent enough to realise. The University has to expect a minimum level of competency to be taught to the kids though, it can't rely on them figuring it out for themselves. I agree, there's much more important things the money could have gone on such as hospitals etc.