Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    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!
    heh well when you look at it from that point of view...heh pun
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Does the Queen answer to the government in her capacity as the head of the CoE? The Queen has many roles, not all of which are strictly tied to her position as the reigning monarch of the UK.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, there are many other companies that are under the guise of the church. The Salvation Army, for one.

    There was a case in New York a few years ago where the Salvation Army threatened to shut their homeless shelters if they weren't granted an exception from the recently reinstated equality bill, thus enabling them to discriminate against homosexuals in their job hiring system.

    What repulsive people they really are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    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.
    If the Church is moaning then it's another reason to disestablish the Church of England. It discriminates and so should not be part of the state. If Christianity discriminates against women or on race they will either be forced to accept change or would have been disestablished a long time ago.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    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.
    :ditto:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    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!
    So can you discriminate in favour of an Englishman applying for a job at a chippy than an Indian? What about the other way round? Actually, don't a lot of Indian restaurants emply Pakistanis?!?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Doesn't the Church receive state funding?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    So can you discriminate in favour of an Englishman applying for a job at a chippy than an Indian? What about the other way round? Actually, don't a lot of Indian restaurants emply Pakistanis?!?
    Yes. What's the big deal. The world isn't fair and never will be. By trying to do so your just prejudicing even more. Wouldn't their complement the foreign atmosphere?

    The Church isn't unfairly prejudicing against homosexuals. It isn't done out of hatred. Isn't it obvious that it's actually relevant. It isn't fair for the Church to be told who to employ either especially if it goes completely against believes.

    I mean there must be a word for it. Forced equality. It's like liberty and liberalism. One goes to the far extremes ending up messing what it should have repaired.

    I don't see why homosexuals should complain tbh. They are pretty much accepted in all the western society. There is no mass organised hatred towards them and they were probably the minority which took less to be accepted by the larger public.

    Then again everyone is prejudiced upon a bit. Whether it's your appearance, your style, your friends, your gestures, your walk or your car it's fairly easy to be prejudiced upon. I mean, if I go to any of the Northern countries I'll probably be seen as a Pakistani/Muslim, even if I'm a Caucasian Catholic; I've got a tan, a beard, and am fairly similar to a middle-eastern in terms of face structure.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the Government and churches - or any part of religions should have anything to do with each other but this shouldn't really be about that - this is employment law and discrimitation.

    To the poster who made that really quite unintelligent comparison with the blind taxi driver - it isn't at all the same, because you can refuse someone a job if they are physically uncapable of doing the job. Someone's sexuality isn't a physiical disability. Ergo, they should be legally able to do whatever job they want.

    And lets face it, any person who is gay who wants to work in the church is more devout to their religion than any of us can imagine - what strength and belief it must take to be able to take all of the ******** that the church comes out with about homosexuals and still want to be a part of it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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:).
    The CoE and separation of church and state is a bit of a laugh. It was set-up by the state to get a divorce...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Yes. What's the big deal. The world isn't fair and never will be. By trying to do so your just prejudicing even more. Wouldn't their complement the foreign atmosphere?

    The Church isn't unfairly prejudicing against homosexuals. It isn't done out of hatred. Isn't it obvious that it's actually relevant. It isn't fair for the Church to be told who to employ either especially if it goes completely against believes.

    I mean there must be a word for it. Forced equality. It's like liberty and liberalism. One goes to the far extremes ending up messing what it should have repaired.
    If the Church wish to have the state stop interfering with its affairs then it should request that it be separated. It's no different from Government ministers visiting an Islamic wedding and walking out because of the traditions they don't like.

    As soon as they stop receiving funding from the state (I assume they do) then they can discriminate however they please as far as I'm concerned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    If the Church wish to have the state stop interfering with its affairs then it should request that it be separated. It's no different from Government ministers visiting an Islamic wedding and walking out because of the traditions they don't like.

    As soon as they stop receiving funding from the state (I assume they do) then they can discriminate however they please as far as I'm concerned.
    I agree with that. Besides I presume no other religion gets any state funding? Now go tell that to the Queen (I imagine she'll be the first to oppose separation).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    I agree with that. Besides I presume no other religion gets any state funding? Now go tell that to the Queen (I imagine she'll be the first to oppose separation).
    I'd imagine she'd oppose it but I can't see Parliament proposing it any time soon. In fact, we might have a monarch who will happily accept even though Parliament may be against it overall, still. I think it should be possible to retain the monarchy whilst separating Church from state.

    Not sure if any other religion does get state funding. I wouldn't be surprised if others do but in an 'unoffical capacity'. If there is another religion in receipt of state funding it wold probably be Judaism rather than Islam. May be they have had state tax spent on their own arbitration system or something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    CoE, and no other religious institution for that matter, gets state funding. Unless you count local funding for the upkeep of church buildings or something. Even then, I'm quite sure they apply for it and locally elected councilors decide whether they get the grants or not.

    Last 3 posts are hilarious. Secular fundamentalists really are as irritating and close-minded as religious fundamentalists.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Another way of putting this question is:
    'should the government have the right to re-write the parts of the bible that they don't like?' I.e. the parts that God surely didn't really mean.

    Kinda makes a mockery of the whole concept of religion, don't you think?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midlandsman)
    Another way of putting this question is:
    'should the government have the right to re-write the parts of the bible that they don't like?' I.e. the parts that God surely didn't really mean.

    Kinda makes a mockery of the whole concept of religion, don't you think?
    ermmmm doesn't the CoE make a mockery of
    'the whole concept of religion'?

    Its not like it its a hard concept to make a mockery of anyhow...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, it shouldn't. Religious organisations should be allowed to hire whoever they want, but it's the same with any organisation. Down with quotas and affirmative action.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    should the government be able to interfere in a privately run institution?
    no, it most certainly should not.

    imo the government should have no say in any sort of employment, except when employment in question is by the state.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    No, it shouldn't. Religious organisations should be allowed to hire whoever they want, but it's the same with any organisation. Down with quotas and affirmative action.
    :yep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If the church is allowed to discriminate against homosexuals then I hope that in my future business endeavours I will be allowed to reject potential employees if they are Catholic, Christian or Muslim :yep:
 
 
 
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
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.