Should Catholics be banned from the workplace

Cantab.

Given the views of Catholics with regards homosexual persons, should they be allowed be openly religious (crosses, talking about Mass, religious gossip etc.) in the workplace?

Sapien

Cantab. wrote:

Given the views of Catholics with regards homosexual persons, should they be allowed be openly religious (crosses, talking about Mass, religious gossip etc.) in the workplace?

Why shouldn't they? (And what in Hades is religious gossip?)

Stark

Hmm, I think this might be best suited to Humanities.

Stark

In my opinion anyway, that would be a no. Fact is, most people in Ireland are "a la carte" Catholics, ie: they consider themselves to be Catholic, but do not take the Church's doctrine in its entirety. This means that displaying Catholic beliefs does not automatically make a person a homophobe. A person can be Catholic but still respect the diversity in the workplace. Similarly, employers should respect religious diversity and an employee's right to worship, as much as they respect a person's sexual orientation.

Vangelis

That's very undemocratic if you ask me, even though I am not in favour of homosexuality.

Stark

What is undemocratic, and why is it undemocratic?

bobbi

i agree catholic should be banned i don't want their values shoved in my face i'm sick of it

simu

No.. I don't think Catholics do shove religion in the faces of others tbh and all Catholics do not agree with the Pope's views on homosexuality.

Overhearing someone telling a colleague they were at Mass earlier is hardly that traumatic or an act of homophobia!

the_syco

Meh. I think no religous stuff should be allowed in the workplace. This includes crosses, pictures, veils, [strike]bombs[/strike], etc. All it does is alienate those who wear them, and sometimes intimitate others.

You want to ban catholics in a country where 80% would be catholics? Maybe not practising catholics, but still catholics. [sarc]But why stop at catholics? Why not ban the jews, islamic religons...[/sarc]:rolleyes:

simu

Would David Hasslehoff t-shirts be banned too?

(Inaccurate thread title btw as for don't actually want to prevent Catholics from working)

Tar.Aldarion

You will never stop me from wearing my lock of w.b. yeat's hair.

Hmm, religious symbols should not be banned. It's just an item of clothing got to do with personal belief, they are not forcing it on you and you can't stop somebody working because they talk about fr. sean giving a good mass tbh. Should there be only certain things allowed to be discussed at lunch...I think not....

seamus

There's enough bull**** PC stifling of freedom of expression in this world without another such thing.

If you're offending by something someone is wearing, then don't engage that person. You can't change the world to make it paletable to you - get over it.

Banning any religion from the workplace is just as much forcing your belief into their face as them being religious is forcing it into yours. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What would you think if people asked that homosexual men act more manly in the workplace because they're sick of homosexuals pushing their "belief" around? It's an equivalent request.

lazydaisy

No. Its discrimination. Its illegal and its immoral.

Prohibiting the contents of conversation is called censorship. Employers already have enough power thank you very much.

fly_agaric

Cantab. wrote:

Given the views of Catholics with regards homosexual persons, should they be allowed be openly religious (crosses, talking about Mass, religious gossip etc.) in the workplace?

Wouldn't you have to apply this to muslims too? Or would the fact that they are a religious minority be enough to protect them from the wrath of the pc police?

Blub2k4

seamus wrote:

What would you think if people asked that homosexual men act more manly in the workplace because they're sick of homosexuals pushing their "belief" around? It's an equivalent request.

Quite disingenious there Seamus, you are incorrect in saying that someones sexual orientation is "equivalent" to their religious beliefs.
That would equate a lifestyle choice (religion) with a natural orientation (being gay), unless like the bible bashers you believe that people can be "Degayed" as is presently trendy in US religious circles.

I dont believe that anyone should be "banned" from anything because of their religion.

bizmark

Why not just ban gays? far less of them compeered to Catholics and they can’t be offended anymore in the workplace problem solved with the majority kept happy \o/

Oh wait that sounds homophobic.

seamus

Blub2k4 wrote:

Quite disingenious there Seamus, you are incorrect in saying that someones sexual orientation is "equivalent" to their religious beliefs.
That would equate a lifestyle choice (religion) with a natural orientation (being gay), unless like the bible bashers you believe that people can be "Degayed" as is presently trendy in US religious circles.

Well, that's kind of my point. Many catholics believe that homosexuality is a choice. So, for them it is an equivalent request. Many of the Bible bashers would also swear to you that they are not catholic out of choice (rather it's just what they are).

stevenmu

Why should people who think homosexuality is wrong be banned from the workplace ? Surely they've as much right to their opinion, as those who think that homosexuality is right ?

Personally I think that if people want to believe homosexuality is wrong and they're all going to hell, that's their personal business. Similarly if other people want to go home every night and have sex with their same-gendered partner that's their personal business. Personal business should never be brought into the workplace.

Hagar

If the Pope is so much against homosexuality why does he go around dressed like a queen?

Rozie

Vangelis wrote:

That's very undemocratic if you ask me, even though I am not in favour of homosexuality.

How can you be in favour/not in favour of homosexuality? Why do homophobes try to make it sound like an "Issue" instead of a sacred part of someone's being nobody should touch?

Meh. I think no religous stuff should be allowed in the workplace. This includes crosses, pictures, veils, bombs, etc. All it does is alienate those who wear them, and sometimes intimitate others.

I don't agree with that. I feel naked without my Ankh. Crosses do have a bit more weight to them than other religious symbols because of the whole proselytizing business, but it's still not a huge deal.

Why should people who think homosexuality is wrong be banned from the workplace ? Surely they've as much right to their opinion, as those who think that homosexuality is right ?

Must correct this; one is a prejudice, the other is not. Plus you're forgetting that there are gay people as well as people that are "for" gay people. There are no "anti-homosexuals", per say, that pro gay people are discriminating against. If there were, then they would have "Just as much right". So no, it's not an equal stance, not to mention the kind of destruction people like Pat Robertson cause using their "views", but yes, it's stupid to ban them from the workplace unless they cause trouble.

Sangre

Here we go again....(again)

Rozie

Hagar wrote:

If the Pope is so much against homosexuality why does he go around dressed like a queen?

Genius XD

Sangre

Rozie wrote:

Must correct this; one is a prejudice, the other is not. Plus you're forgetting that there are gay people as well as people that are "for" gay people.

Thinking homosexuality is wrong doesn't make you prejudiced.

the_syco

Blub2k4 wrote:

That would equate a lifestyle choice (religion) with a natural orientation (being gay), unless like the bible bashers you believe that people can be "Degayed" as is presently trendy in US religious circles.

Meh. Convert the heathens (catholics, islamics, etc) to paganism. Problem solved. Then we can look foward to Valhalla, and sacrifice those who don't convert by the due date:cool:

Ankh

Ah. The ancient Egyptian symbol of life.

"anti-homosexuals"

Its called homophobe. As in hating all homo's, no matter which of the 4 letters they choose.

EOA_Mushy

bobbi wrote:

i agree catholic should be banned i don't want their values shoved in my face i'm sick of it

Two way system. (or many way, how many religion's are there) Apart from the overly happy clapper types. Wouldnt mind them being removed from life.

Nevyn

Thinking homosexuality is wrong for YOU doesn't make you prejudiced.
Thinking that it is wrong for anyone else and the world in general is prejudiced.

the_syco wrote:

Meh. Convert the heathens (catholics, islamics, etc) to paganism. Problem solved. Then we can look foward to Valhalla, and sacrifice those who don't convert by the due date:cool:

Sounds like you need a better defination of paganism and pagans

patzer117

wow, are people serious here?

I'm fed up defending Catholics against people but the idea that they shold be banned from workplaces is far too stretched. Why not ban the Hijab in public? Oh, that's right, freedom of expression - that right that everyone has.

If you want to join in the church bashing parade, do so, make your own mistakes, but don't go sprouting nonsense that will harm completely innocent people. Don't lump all Catholics together. If someone says something you disagree with, challenge them, but be polite. If someone wears something that offends you, be aware that what you say may offened them, but if you feel it necessary, tell them it makes you feel uncomfortable. But to be honest i don't know anyone that goes around wearing a cross outside all their clothes saying 'i love Jesus, All gays should be shot' cause that doesn't happen.

As for the homesexual arguement, being gay isn't a choice, being camp is. Being gay isn't a choice, practising it is. The Catholic church is against practising homosexuals (and non married practising heterosexuals). Whether that is right or wrong is your own view but don't try to restrict my freedom when I haven't done anything wrong. If me being a Catholic, and professing to being a Catholic, insults you, then you have some serious problems of your own to deal with.

(a now very angry) patzer

stevenmu

Rozie wrote:

Must correct this; one is a prejudice, the other is not. Plus you're forgetting that there are gay people as well as people that are "for" gay people. There are no "anti-homosexuals", per say, that pro gay people are discriminating against. If there were, then they would have "Just as much right". So no, it's not an equal stance, not to mention the kind of destruction people like Pat Robertson cause using their "views", but yes, it's stupid to ban them from the workplace unless they cause trouble.

I think I see what you're saying here, that one point of view is 'ok' and the other is not. For what it's worth I agree with you on that much. The thing is, I see myself as a bit of a libertarian, the way I see it is that people have a right to think homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals are evil and will go to hell, as long as they don't inflict this view on others. It's not for me or you or anyone else to dictate what the 'correct' way of thinking is.

For example, I think it would be fine to have a catholic working in a HR department, with the power the hire and fire people. Even if they think homosexuality is wrong, that's their personal view and as far as I'm concerned they're entitled to it, as long as it doesn't interefere with their work duties i.e. they treat job applicants or employees the exact same way they would treat any other job applicant or employess. In fact, I think that excluding homophobes from a job would be just as bad a discrimination as any discrimination against homosexuals would be.

<edit>

Rozie wrote:

but yes, it's stupid to ban them from the workplace unless they cause trouble.

Oops, I missed this the first time I read your post, I guess we agree so.
</edit>




Btw, I know that Pope John Paul II, on several occasions, called for greater tolerance towards homosexuals and I think that Benedict XVI has aswell, so I think that anyone who would discriminate against homosexuals because of their catholocism is actuall going against the teachings of the Catholic church

Yes

Sangre

Thaedydal wrote:

Thinking that it is wrong for anyone else and the world in general is prejudiced.

Hardly. I think that all homosexual acts by anyone are evil and still be tolerant of them.

Why do you tolerate evil? Surely it should be opposed where possible?

stevenmu

Thaedydal wrote:

Thinking homosexuality is wrong for YOU doesn't make you prejudiced.
Thinking that it is wrong for anyone else and the world in general is prejudiced.

I'd disagree with you here, altough it's probably only a technicality. I personally think homosexuality is 'wrong'. Altough the way I see it, it's wrong in the same sense that somebody saying 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. I mean that as far as I'm concerned it's just not the 'right' way to be. I don't think it's 'evil' or going to cause any huge catastrophe I just think it's the wrong ...
choice is probably the wrong word, but I think you see where I'm going. I'd even go as far as to say that I'm 'prejudiced', 'pre' equalling before/already, 'judiced' meaning judged/decided, and basically I've already decided that homosexuality is wrong (wrong being defined above). Tbh, I'm quite happy to admit that I am prejudiced against homosexuals, and I don't see anything wrong with this. I think that I'm as entitled to this opinion as the most pro-homosexuality people are (be they actual homosexuals or not, /*nods to Rozie*/) to their opinion.

When people take their prejudices and turn them into discrimination, that's a different matter i.e. not hiring someone because of their sexuality, or not being friendly/neighbourly to someon 'cos they're gay.

To tie this back into the original topic, I don't think that Catholics or homophobes (and the 2 aren't nessecarily linked these days) should be excluded from the workplace, there's a difference between being prejudiced (which I think is ok) and discriminitory (which I think isn't). As long as Catholics can agree to get along with Homosexuals (and according to their previous Pope they should, and I think with the current one too), and Homosexuals can get along with Catholics, and I don't see why they shouldn't, then there's no reason for either group to exclude the other from the workplace or any other place.



(and before anyone asks if I actually know or am friends with any homosexuals, well I only think of myself as friends with one, but she's a bit....
In general I'd be quite happy to be friends with gay people but for whatever reason the only other outwardly gay people I know are complete fúcktárds, but that's only 4 or 5, I'm more than willing to believe that most gay people are just as nice as the rest of us and I've only met the minority of dodgy ones. )

Rozie

Sangre wrote:

Hardly. I think that all homosexual acts by anyone are evil and still be tolerant of them.

This is still discriminative because of the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice, no matter what you claim to believe, this much is essentially proven, whatever causes it. If homosexual actions were a choice, it wouldn't be right to discriminate against it, but you could still potentially lay claim to that argument.

However, because of the fact that "Homosexual acts are evil" is a thoroughly non sequitor argument, you're wrong either way.

Having an "Opinion" on homosexuality is pretty stupid anyway. There is no reason how it's any different from having an "Opinion" on builders, people who drink cocoa at around 2 AM before they go to bed, drummers, and ballet dancers; except for the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice therefore it should be even more trivial an "Opinion". It's ridiculous to make a deal out of it like most people do; claiming it's some kind of scared belief.

It's not. Homosexuality is an entirely natural behaviour certain people engage in because they are wired in a way that makes them desire it. You are not. Thinking homosexuality is evil is just around about way of thinking homosexuals are somehow inferior, since they cannot live a happy life without engaging in homosexual acts, unlike heterosexual people. It's a sly and nasty way of doing it, too.

If you make a deal out of having an opinion on homosexuality anymore than you have an opinion on people with small noses, then you're just looking for trouble.

StupidLikeAFox

Homosexuality isnt a choice. Homosexual acts are choice, just because your homosexual doesnt mean you *have* to do the acts.

Also if someone says "I think homosexual acts are evil" you can say whether hes right or wrong, chances are he wont change his mind tho

Rozie

ColHol wrote:

Homosexuality isnt a choice. Homosexual acts are choice, just because your homosexual doesnt mean you *have* to do the acts.

Also if someone says "I think homosexual acts are evil" you can say whether hes right or wrong, chances are he wont change his mind tho

Homosexual acts are only a choice in the same way heterosexual acts are a choice.

Living your life completely without sex, romance, and companionship isn't terrible pleasurable. Does God tortue people just for the way they were born/conditioned?

Karl Hungus

seamus wrote:

There's enough bull**** PC stifling of freedom of expression in this world without another such thing.

Agreed.

Political Correctness offends me tbh. I would like to see it banned.

Blub2k4

seamus wrote:

Many of the Bible bashers would also swear to you that they are not catholic out of choice (rather it's just what they are).

But that would only be correct insofar as the Catholic church tells them that they are catholic for life etc etc... like myself it is something one can easily reject by not adhering to their rules, they can claim that I am still catholic but I can choose not to be, if I were aroused by visual images of naked men or other such homosexual fantasies then I could not choose to let the blood rush so to speak....

Blub2k4

Karl Hungus wrote:

Agreed.

Political Correctness offends me tbh. I would like to see it banned.

*badum tish*

Laguna

I don't think Catholics should be banned from the workplace, I don't believe in exclusion in any form. I will however concede that there's nothing more irritating than a devout Catholic who likes to push their views on you, especially so if you're an atheist or a follower of another religion. Catholicism as a religion is based on non tolerance, why can't a gay person become a priest?, why does it matter?, priests aren't supposed to be having sex with anyone in the first place (when did that ever stop them).

It says phrases in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour", how is it that Catholics initiated the Crusades as well as many other bloody wars against opposing religions (not forgetting the fact Hitler himself was a Catholic) yet are able to pray to a God whos main mantra is loving thy neighbour/brother irrespective of your differences?.

I'm not a Catholic so maybe someone can explain to me, how can anyone *really* believe in anything about Catholicism considering it's a religion that was created by a Roman emperor who changed to being a Christian simply because he perceived the general consensus of Rome as doing the same (the very same people who used to throw Christians to Lions), surely people would rationalise anything that Catholicism preaches is derived from men who used it as a method of contro and tool of popularity?..

Sangre

I actually meant to say that one could think that all homosexual acts are evil and still be tolerant. (perhaps a freudian slip?)

Rozie you're constantly arguing your opinion as fact, please stop its rather annoying.

fly_agaric

Laguna wrote:

I will however concede that there's nothing more irritating than a devout Catholic who likes to push their views on you, especially so if you're an atheist or a follower of another religion.

Really.
There is nothing more irritating (IMO) than devotees of any religion who want to ram their creed down other people's throats. This of course includes secular types who endlessly lecture us all about the great evils of the Catholic church but are too right-on to ever dare to criticise any other religion.

Laguna wrote:

It says phrases in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour", how is it that Catholics initiated the Crusades as well as many other bloody wars against opposing religions

The crusades happened before all that stuff to do with Martin Luther so they are part of all Western European Christian's religious history. Nice one pinning it on Catholics though. Sure isn't Catholicism the root of all evil?:rolleyes:

Laguna wrote:

(not forgetting the fact Hitler himself was a Catholic)

:rolleyes: again.

Laguna

All religion is infantile in my opinion, the thread is titled should catholics be allowed in the workplace, therefore I stay on topic and talk about Catholics, if I were to include Judaism/Islam what else what I be doing but including them for includings sake?

Laguna

fly_agaric wrote:

Sure isn't Catholicism the root of all evil?:rolleyes:

In a word, yes.

fly_agaric

Laguna wrote:

All religion is infantile in my opinion, the thread is titled should catholics be allowed in the workplace, therefore I stay on topic and talk about Catholics, if I were to include Judaism/Islam what else what I be doing but including them for includings sake?

I suppose I was nit-picking. You implied that the devout Catholics are more irritating than other religious zealots pushing the faith on their unwilling victims.

Laguna wrote:

In a word, yes.

:eek:

Laguna

Laguna wrote:

In a word, yes.

No evil existed before the Catholic Church church came into existence?

Don't be so ridiculous.

Honestly what is the point in lying so blatantly?

Laguna

Fair enough, it was a little hasty for me to say Catholicism is the root of ALL evil, yet I still feel it is a religion thats main offerings are intolerance, opression and misery.

Freddie59

Hagar wrote:

If the Pope is so much against homosexuality why does he go around dressed like a queen?

A typically disrespectful comment. At least in this country you CAN criticise the Catholic church (and others with it). If you passed the above comment about a Muslim icon you wouldn't be around very long. (Oh I forgot - they don't have freedom of speech...:eek: ).

Say what you like but at least try to show some respect. As a Catholic (and probably an a la carte one as quoted earlier) I find it sad that so many are so quick to row in with the criticisms.

This thread has swung between a Naziesque comment about banning people and icons to the downright aethiestic like the one above. As a Catholic I do not shove my religion down other people's throats, am prepared to live and let live, but am saddened to see what some Irish people descend to in their views.

Were it not for the religious institutions (and yes I too am disgusted at the activities of the paedophiles in their ranks) many in this country would not have received an education.

We are now facing into an era in Europe, where, if things are not controlled, we could see an Islamist Europe within 50 to 100 years. And compared to that, my friends, the activities of the Catholic Church will pale in comparison. Need I mention the Taleban in Afghanistan, who were seen by Osama bin Laden as 'just getting it right' with their version of a fundamentalist Muslim state.:mad:

Laguna

Freddie59 wrote:

If you passed the above comment about a Muslim icon you wouldn't be around very long. (Oh I forgot - they don't have freedom of speech...:eek: ).

Hmm, what do you know about Islam apart from what you're spoon fed by a predominantly fundamentalist Christian media?. Hey, you know what?, your comment above is

Freddie59 wrote:

A typically disrespectful comment.

Freddie59

Laguna wrote:

Hmm, what do you know about Islam apart from what you're spoon fed by a predominantly fundamentalist Christian media?. Hey, you know what?, your comment above is

Didn't see any Catholics flying planeloads of innocent people into buildings full of more innocent people.........or is that just another spoonful from a 'predominantly fundamentalist Christian media'?:eek:

And by the way if you read a book called 'Holy War Inc' it is an amazing eye opener into the Muslim psyche. I would recommend you read it before offering any further advice.;)

patzer117

Laguna wrote:

Catholicism as a religion is based on non tolerance, why can't a gay person become a priest?, why does it matter?, priests aren't supposed to be having sex with anyone in the first place (when did that ever stop them).

It says phrases in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour", how is it that Catholics initiated the Crusades as well as many other bloody wars against opposing religions (not forgetting the fact Hitler himself was a Catholic) yet are able to pray to a God whos main mantra is loving thy neighbour/brother irrespective of your differences?.

I'm not a Catholic so maybe someone can explain to me, how can anyone *really* believe in anything about Catholicism considering it's a religion that was created by a Roman emperor who changed to being a Christian simply because he perceived the general consensus of Rome as doing the same (the very same people who used to throw Christians to Lions), surely people would rationalise anything that Catholicism preaches is derived from men who used it as a method of contro and tool of popularity?..

Hmm, on your first part well of course homosexuals are allowed become priests, just not practising homosexuals.

2nd yes it says love thy neighbour and nobody ever said homosexuals are evil, just that homosexuality is evil. Love the sinner, hate the sin. That's my belief and what Catholocism should be. As for the Crusades, get over them. Lets talk about the present. If we were to talk about what pagans did 1000 years ago you'd shoot us down too. Deal with the present. The Church has done much more good than it has bad. Surely everyone can admit that is true?

3rd Catholocism was not founded by an emperor changing to being a Christian. If you are talking about Constantine his mother told him to change and he had a dream before a battle where God appeared to him and said 'in this sign you will be victorious'. Nothing to do with pleasing the population.
And even if it was pleasing the population - well that means that the population was pro-Catholocism anyway so it wasn't founded by him in that case anyway :rolleyes: . Grr Arg again.

If you're going to sprout stuff then check the facts first.

Laguna

Freddie59 wrote:

Didn't see any Catholics flying planeloads of innocent people into buildings full of more innocent people.........or is that just another spoonful from a 'predominantly fundamentalist Christian media'?:eek:

No, the 'Christian' approach is to load up a B-52 full of every kind of bomb you can think of, drop the load on a 'suspected terrorist haven', actually let me get that right; blanket bomb (i.e. flatten), turn around, reload up with some more bombs and do it again, quite more devastating than a suicide bomber who can only kill once is it not?. Many of the people who become suicide bombers do so in response to atrocities that have happened to them as a result of western/christian actions, be they bombs/military incursions/political sanctions brought upon them by the west. Why do Christians bomb islamic states?, hmm, oil?, the need for a scapegoat?, or the all time classic; weapons of mass destruction?

Freddie59 wrote:

And by the way if you read a book called 'Holy War Inc' it is an amazing eye opener into the Muslim psyche. I would recommend you read it before offering any further advice.;)

The muslim psyche?, do you know any muslims on a social level, nay, have you ever met one?; I have, I went to school with many muslims in London and you know what?, they're normal people!, just like you and me!.

What's the psyche of people like Bush/Blair/Rumsfeld/Cheney who use your religion as a smokescreen to line their pockets full of oil money?. Does it not turn your stomach when you see murderers like Bush et al broadcast on television preaching christian values *edit* the 'American' way with all the Iraqi blood and the blood of coalition soldiers who have died all in the glorious name of globalisation?