Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and abo

[Greatest I am]

Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

The Gay marriage issue may be instrumental in the destruction of Church and Mosque discrimination without just cause against certain sub groups within our greater society.

Notably, Gays, women, slaves and sexual practices.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/holy- ... 1areb.html

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk ... _1_3087271

The tradition of the Abrahamic cults and sects has been to be anti Gay, anti the equality of women, not emancipating slaves and telling consenting adults how to handle themselves in sexual matters.

Gays are said to be abominations.
Men are told to never allow a woman to have authority over them.
Women are told to submit to their male masters.
Run away slaves are told to return to their masters and the masters are told just how to beat their slaves. Nowhere in Christianity or Islam is there instructions to emancipate or free slaves.

In our secular worlds, do Christianity and Islam have the right to promote these discriminations that exceed and go directly against the humanistic thinking that the rest of the secular world seem to be going in?

Our Governments create laws and every law is permission and indeed compulsion to discriminate against certain sub groups within our societies. These laws can be questioned and repealed if society deems them against human rights and we see this happening in an ongoing basis and notably of late, we have recognized the inappropriateness of discriminating against Gays and others for reasons of sexual orientation and divorce. Religion forbids a change in dogma and frown against any questioning.

Should Government put a stop to these groups who are in effect usurping the power of the state and your vote?

We are in effect being lead by religion and not the state or Government we vote for.
Just who is the boss and why is my vote and yours being nullified by Religion and their ultra conservative agenda?

Churches and Mosques are discriminating against those that society has found innocent of wrongdoing.
Should Religions be told and or forced to stop doing so?
Have Religions crossed the line of separation of Church and State?

--------------------------------------------------------------

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

You or some family member may be next on a Religious hit list my friend.
Think about it.

Regards
DL

[spike]

For all the griping about homosexuals being discriminated against by this or that group, homosexuality has never been more accepted or acceptable in human history.

I took a cruise the other day and they had a chapter of 'Friends of Dorothy' on board. It is quite common now to have these gay gatherings on cruise ships. This tells me that being gay is openly accepted everywhere and is generally no big deal.

There is a culture of gayness which adds to the multicultural fabric on postmodern societies.

[converge]

I took a cruise the other day and they had a chapter of 'Friends of Dorothy' on board. It is quite common now to have these gay gatherings on cruise ships. This tells me that being gay is openly accepted everywhere and is generally no big deal.

Cool, you should go to Iran and try to hook up with some guys. No big deal!

[Wootah]

Of course it does. A club has the right to choose its members, a restaurant has the right to reject anyone as a customer. A person can refuse entry to another from their home. The right to discriminate is essential to a moral society.

The problem for the state is that it doesn't have the right to do anything. It is just a vehicle and more importantly, most importantly, a democratic state is a means for limiting the use of the mechanisms of the state for one's own purposes.

The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems. Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

[spike]

The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems. Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

This does not make sense! It sounds like the world needs discrimination to succeed. It sounds like, if discrimination was banned in the West the West would collapse, that the West depends on discrimination to survive. Nonsense!

There is far more discrimination in Arab/Islamic countries, who openly discriminate against women, homosexuals and minorities. In the West people of discrimination have recourse, whereas in the Arab/Islamic world they don't.

And how is the state supposed to end discrimination when culturally it wouldn't resolve itself, with a big stick? Ending discrimination will happen better if it occurs through the natural forces of cosmopolitism.

[Greatest I am]

For all the griping about homosexuals being discriminated against by this or that group, homosexuality has never been more accepted or acceptable in human history.

I took a cruise the other day and they had a chapter of 'Friends of Dorothy' on board. It is quite common now to have these gay gatherings on cruise ships. This tells me that being gay is openly accepted everywhere and is generally no big deal.

There is a culture of gayness which adds to the multicultural fabric on postmodern societies.

I see.
Quite a way for society to repent from it’s years of repression and murder.
Just when did repentance mean making them a tourist attraction as part of the journey?
You would have them as a separate visible minority while they would wish it the opposite way.

This is not profitable to a demographic common.
You shoot yourself in the foot.

BTW. Just when did we, as a world, become the civilized postmodern society and world that you live in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B ... re=related

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Of course it does. A club has the right to choose its members, a restaurant has the right to reject anyone as a customer. A person can refuse entry to another from their home. The right to discriminate is essential to a moral society.

The problem for the state is that it doesn't have the right to do anything. It is just a vehicle and more importantly, most importantly, a democratic state is a means for limiting the use of the mechanisms of the state for one's own purposes.

The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems. Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

Not to burst your bubble but just in case you have not noticed, the west already ban’s hate forms of discrimination.

You have a small point perhaps in the choosing of members but this issue speaks to employees and their state rights being ignored in favor of less acceptable behavior to society at large and the new trends it wants to enable.

Religions in this sense are anti- democratic.

I thinks that since secular societies have enacted exclusionary laws within society then retarded religions should be urged to get in step.

Discrimination is both a blessing and a curse.
You call it societies destruction while following a God who does the destroying. Sigh.

That is why secularism is winning.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems. Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

This does not make sense! It sounds like the world needs discrimination to succeed. It sounds like, if discrimination was banned in the West the West would collapse, that the West depends on discrimination to survive. Nonsense!

There is far more discrimination in Arab/Islamic countries, who openly discriminate against women, homosexuals and minorities. In the West people of discrimination have recourse, whereas in the Arab/Islamic world they don't.

And how is the state supposed to end discrimination when culturally it wouldn't resolve itself, with a big stick? Ending discrimination will happen better if it occurs through the natural forces of cosmopolitism.

Be you follow a secular God/President, or a religious God.
Every law is permission and indeed, compulsion, to discriminate negatively against a sub group of society.

The fact that religions discriminate negatively against sub groups without showing a just reason is what will kill those sects.

Secular governments have that requirement and is therefore superior law over religions law.

Regards
DL

[spike]

DL,

I know a number of gays that don't see the bogyman around every corner like you do. They are generally comfortable with how they are treated by society at large.

[Greatest I am]

DL,

I know a number of gays that don't see the bogyman around every corner like you do. They are generally comfortable with how they are treated by society at large.

Certainly. Socio economic factors of all kinds apply.

The point is, if society at large decide that to be Gay is quite all right, then it is counter productive to society to have some fools deciding that the rest of society is wrong and that they will not abide by those legal rules. They shall continue to promote hate of the now, exonerated, sub group. That is anarchy my friend.

Regards
DL

[spike]

DL,

...my friend.

I'm not your friend. You're just being condescending when you say that!

[Wootah]

The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems. Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

This does not make sense! It sounds like the world needs discrimination to succeed. It sounds like, if discrimination was banned in the West the West would collapse, that the West depends on discrimination to survive. Nonsense!

There is far more discrimination in Arab/Islamic countries, who openly discriminate against women, homosexuals and minorities. In the West people of discrimination have recourse, whereas in the Arab/Islamic world they don't.

And how is the state supposed to end discrimination when culturally it wouldn't resolve itself, with a big stick? Ending discrimination will happen better if it occurs through the natural forces of cosmopolitism.

Spike, just go about your day today and try to think how often you use discrimination/discernment in daily life. How did you get to work? How did you decide to lunch? In your work how did you decide to achieve your tasks. Just from a study of the mundane we see the value of discrimination. Ending discrimination is like asking me to not choose which keys to press on the keyboard.

In Arab/Islamic countries discrimination is not the problem, it never was, the fact is that they don't discriminate. There is no difference between peaceful worship and radical Islam. The whole notion of radical Islam and extremist Islam comes from the West trying to discriminate and separate the good people from the bad within Islam. None of that thinking comes from within Islam. Picking on the non-Muslim is not showing that they discriminate it shows that they behave uniformly. They don't weigh a concept on its merit and determine when it might be useful and when not.

Think about racism. Unless we name racism and discriminate against it then how can tackle it?
Think about medicine. Unless we can identify the disease how can we cure it?
Show me where discrimination, as a tool, is not useful.

Our right to discriminate is fundamental and sane and being taken away. There will be consequences.

[chaz wyman]

Of course it does. A club has the right to choose its members, a restaurant has the right to reject anyone as a customer.

True! But not on some grounds. Grounds that are inherently unfair, unreasonable or repressive.
State institutions have not the same right as they are supposed to represent all members of society.


A person can refuse entry to another from their home.

True!

The right to discriminate is essential to a moral society.

The need to treat everyone the same is essential to the smooth running of the state.

That would depend on the type of discrimination you are talking about.



The problem for the state is that it doesn't have the right to do anything.

Wrong! So completely wrong, I hardly know where to start on this idiotic remark.

It is just a vehicle and more importantly, most importantly, a democratic state is a means for limiting the use of the mechanisms of the state for one's own purposes.

This is what we like to call in the Uk complete unmitigated bollocks. What planet are you on?
Let me think??? --- Ah yes white middle class, getting on for middle aged planet. Never suffered from any negative discrimination planet, and don't give a shit who is discriminated against as long as it is not me planet.


The failure to discriminate is the cause of most of the world's problems.

A bland and dead platitude; meaningless nonsense.

Banning discrimination is just another step in the cultural suicide of the West.

Remarks that Hitler would have relished.

[artisticsolution]

Lovin' your response Chaz.

I got another one.

As long as the Church doesn't pay taxes...it can't discriminate. If it wants to discriminate...then tax the hell out of it.

[Wootah]

Lovin' your response Chaz.

I got another one.

As long as the Church doesn't pay taxes...it can't discriminate. If it wants to discriminate...then tax the hell out of it.

Many charities also do not have to pay taxes. Think AS.