Turn on thread page Beta

Should the government have the right to control homosexual and transexual clergy? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There has been recent debate over the British government trying to basically force the church to allow homosexual clergy members under the equality laws in Britain.

    Do you agree with this?

    Once again sorry if this is not the appropriate thread but it came under law, politics and theology but not quite 1 category.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see any reason why homosexual/transexual people shouldn't be clergy members. If it takes state actino to enforce this, so be it.

    Elected representatives > religious prejudice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Red_Wedge)
    I can't see any reason why homosexual/transexual people shouldn't be clergy members.
    What if the particular church in question opposes gay sex? That would be problematic. It could backfire eg pushing these homophobic religious groups underground.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If the church is against homosexuality so why would they support it? Other religions in the UK wouldn't be forced into anything. However, if the law has been passed, they are not above it as an institution. I don't really know what the actual law stipulates.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. This is one of the reasons I'm all for separation of church and state. The church shouldn't involve itself in government affairs, and the government shouldn't involve itself with church affairs (within reason obviously, I mean if the CoE started doing human sacrifices, that would be taking the piss a bit :p:).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No I entirely disagree.
    It is not the role of Government to dictate how the Church acts. If the Church decides to accept homosexuals then so be it. If, however, the Church does not make that decision, it should not be forced upon them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As long as the Church is attached to the state, then yes, the Government has full rights to do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not exactly sure of how the government and the church are linked (if at all), but if they are linked, then the whole situation is ****** up because any non-secular state is completely ridiculous. Me making any comment about that is comparable to me debating certain parts of the bible, even when I don't believe in God - it's inherently pointless. If they aren't linked then sure, they should be allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they want to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the government passed laws enforcing the election of homosexual clergy it is only right that the church obeys this ruling, the government is the law of this land not the church, and the church needs to respect that. However should such laws be passed it would only be right if it applied to all religions. Would they try to force through the election of homosexual imams as well?

    I do not think the government should pass such laws though, these religions believe homosexuality is a sin, they are entitled to these beliefs, and the government claims to support freedom of religion. As long as they do not enforce these beliefs on non-believers they can believe what they want.

    The only aspect in which discrimination can be claimed, would be if a homosexual Christian wanted to join, however it could be claimed if they do not believe in such a fundamental belief they do not entirely follow that denomination, and why would you want to belong to a religion that claims you are going to hell?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greens)
    What if the particular church in question opposes gay sex? That would be problematic. It could backfire eg pushing these homophobic religious groups underground.
    Opposing gay sex is a position you're allowed to take, but if you're a public institution you have to follow certain admissions laws, including not discriminating against someone because of their sexuality (as opposed to merely holding a prejudice).

    There is, I suppose, the risk that you'd drive them underground, but laws, by their nature, can't apply to one group and not others; the rule of law means every piece of legislation is applied equally. Therefore, certain groups can't be made concessions merely because they're a risk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithiris)
    xxx
    What pisses me off is the issue of religious privilege. I guess I am, deep down, a libertarian. So, if, for example, a law firm doesn't want to hire a black person or a gay person, then that should, in an ideal world, be permitted. Then again, in an ideal world, racism and homophobia wouldn't exist. On a serious note, if religious organisations are going to be exempt from the law banning discrimination against gay people when it comes to recruitment, then religions will have an unfair privilege. This is not, in my opinion, acceptable. Fo this reason, we should either get rid of all anti-discrimination legislation or we should apply the law equally to everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Red_Wedge)
    if you're a public institution you have to follow certain admissions laws.
    Are you referring to all religous organisations or merely the Church of England? In other words, when you say 'public instiutions', are you making a public/private distinction?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithiris)
    The only aspect in which discrimination can be claimed, would be if a homosexual Christian wanted to join, however it could be claimed if they do not believe in such a fundamental belief they do not entirely follow that denomination, and why would you want to belong to a religion that claims you are going to hell?
    I think with anti-discrimination laws, they should only apply when a person's race/sex/religion/sexuality/etc. has no bearing on their ability to do a job. When there's no fundamental reason a person of that description couldn't do the job.

    So there are plenty of exceptions like you wouldn't hire someone with no legs to model trousers. Or you wouldn't hire a muslim to taste teste pork products. Or you wouldn't hire a white man to play Nelson Mandela in a biographical film.

    I think a clergy member is one of these exceptions. Upholding the religious beliefs of the church (whatever they may be) is a fundamental part of the job, so if you are unable to do that then I think they should be within their rights to not hire you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greens)
    What pisses me off is the issue of religious privilege. I guess I am, deep down, a libertarian. So, if, for example, a law firm doesn't want to hire a black person or a gay person, then that should, in an ideal world, be permitted. Then again, in an ideal world, racism and homophobia wouldn't exist. On a serious note, if religious organisations are going to be exempt from the law banning discrimination against gay people when it comes to recruitment, then religions will have an unfair privilege. This is not, in my opinion, acceptable. Fo this reason, we should either get rid of all anti-discrimination legislation or we should apply the law equally to everything.
    I agree that it should be an all or nothing approach, and don't get me wrong, I don't support the idea of a religious privilege, I'm a firm believer in equal discrimination/equality to anyone regardless of their gender, sexuality, religion or race.

    The point I was trying to get across is that the government can't support freedom of beliefs and still enforce the recognition of homosexual clergy. It is contradictory as the act of enforcing this would be taking away their right to believe what they want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greens)
    Are you referring to all religous organisations or merely the Church of England? In other words, when you say 'public instiutions', are you making a public/private distinction?
    All religious organisations that employ people in a professioinal capacity. If they do this, I'd define them as a public organisation, and they should therefore be subject to employment laws.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, its up to the heads of the religious institutions
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon1212)
    No, its up to the heads of the religious institutions
    So the Queen, then.

    Who [being realistic here] answers to government.

    There are some advantages of the state being attached to a church in the constitution, much as I detest it - one is that the government does have some leverage here. Even if Liz won't bow to pressure to recommend to the Archbishop about this matter, then be sure that the government could just exert leverage in some other way. Faith schools are just asking for government intervention, TBH.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    So the Queen, then.

    Who [being realistic here] answers to government.

    There are some advantages of the state being attached to a church in the constitution, much as I detest it - one is that the government does have some leverage here. Even if Liz won't bow to pressure to recommend to the Archbishop about this matter, then be sure that the government could just exert leverage in some other way. Faith schools are just asking for government intervention, TBH.
    I think religious institutions shouldn't have to answer to government, only their gods...etc.. It makes them happy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't equality. Their sexual orientation and way of living are relevant to the job in question. It's like forcing a taxi company to hire blind drivers!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 26, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

3,494

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.