Good News Everyone

Knasher

Eramen wrote: »

It seems 'modern atheism' has had to adopt 'equality for all' as a truism because they really stand for nothing in the practical sphere of life anymore. 'Atheism' - to be a non-theist seems to have lost its value.

If you want to limit your interactions in this forum to simply being a non-theist, then absolutely nobody is forcing you to participate any more than that. Apparently the rest of us want to discus atheism as it relates to other things, sometimes directly sometimes less so, sometimes philosophical sometimes political and sometimes nonsensical.

This is why A&A is a forum and not a single thread. Sorry if you feel that has devalued atheism in some way. It seems most of the rest of us prefer it this way.

Turtwig

Eramen wrote: »

This is the reason bandwagon atheists feel its their solemn duty to help every poor ol' sod to 'gain the equality that's rightfully theirs'. Like they're on some sort of holy mission. It's pathetic. Everyone is not equal, we have our personality, talents, abilities, biology and thoughts, all of these have genuine and differing value. This is what makes us human. Inequality is a part of nature and it what makes us diverse as a species.

Science doesn't prove any equality between all people. This kind of chatter in the AA forum is nonsense, it is political science and should be posted in that forum. Egalitarian progressivism and the mere 'feelings' its based on has nothing to do with us. Politics is not = AA.

In respectable and intelligent company I'd never call myself an atheist because of all the baggage that 'atheists' themselves have attached to the word. Today 'atheists' insist on building their worldview not around non-theism but around a purely nominal, intellectually mediocre, progressive-elgalitarian, pseudo-scientific framework.

In the push for 'total equality' there now exists more discrimination than ever.. 'atheists' have attached themselves to this for no other reason than to seem relevant.

I didn't think a John Waters polar opposite was possible, apparently I was mistaken. Probably needs a few more fancy adjectives though.

" 'Atheism' - to be a non-theist seems to have lost its value. "
What, if any, values does Atheism hold now? What, if any, value(s) did it lose? What were its original values to begin with?

sink

Sorry that wasn't very clear what I meant to say was that the majority here would be in favor of ending discrimination based on class or category (i.e religion, race, social position), but not discrimination on merit (i.e ones ability and action).

If you are for discrimination based on class or category, you are by definition a bigot and or racist. And if you are against discrimination based on merit you share that philosophy with the like of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

No one here is arguing against discrimination based on merit.

wonderfulname

Eramen, you are aware that section 37 has direct consequence for atheists in that it allows for discrimination based on belief or lack thereof?

And of course that it is part of the wider problem of religious influence on our legislation?

Off with you, if you're happy living in a system designed to suit people of one belief more than any other, but it's pretty obvious from where I'm standing why anyone outside of that elevated belief would take an interest in seeing it treated as any other.

Eramen

sink wrote: »

Sorry that wasn't very clear what I meant to say was that the majority here would be in favor of ending discrimination based on class or category (i.e religion, race, social position), but not discrimination on merit (i.e ones ability and action).

On what basis?

The thing is, while I'm not advocating discrimination purely along these lines, these attributes are indeed real and part of the natural factors of the world we live in, so how can they not come into the equation regarding the assigning of values? I think they must be regarded, because to pretend they don't have an impact in the real world would be fraudulent and intellectually dishonest.

Today, egalitarian-progressivism denies that sex, ethnic group, religion, martial status has any bearing on what an individual is capable of, when they do. Ex: They did a study in Oz testing male and female 'firefighters', consisting of strength and endurance to scale walls, ladders, break down doors with body weight etc. The usual things a firefighter must do. All men passed in the experiment, while less than 20% did. I'll see can I pull this up for you.

Only the ideologically blind can't see obvious differences that biology qualities and diversity can produce on body, mind, personality and spirit, which can in turn affect capabilities.

sink wrote: »

If you are for discrimination based on class or category, you are by definition a bigot and or racist. And if you are against discrimination based on merit you share that philosophy with the like of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

I do fully agree with this type of discrimination, but my point as in the paragraph above, is that the above can impact merit, talent and ability. The two discrimination's are inseparable to a point [discrimination defined as the ability to assign value to things of differing worth by intellection] . Yes, I'm a heretic - to the modern masses of close-minded: sex, religion, race can definitely affect ability, value and potential future merit.

On a side note I don't agree with those thinkers, or purely communistic / collectivist ideology, or any ideology that can only ascribes material-utilitarian values to things. These ideas tend to promote mediocrity, reducing everything down to the lowest value of understanding at which is the only point people truly can be made 'equal'. Yet in actual fact all that this does is bring down the overall potential quality, merit, creativity and otherwise, of the society itself.

This was the point of my original post. Atheists seem now to be fully committed to lowering all standards to accommodate perceived and politically-invented 'inequalities', so that out of some misguided feeling of compassion, that they may say 'everyone is now equal, when previously they were not,yay!". Yet, there is no basis whatsoever for ascribing this mass-equality in the first place, least of all scientific.

In the end all that has actually happened is the politicization of atheism [whereby it's no longer atheism], and outside forces manipulate atheist thought into fighting their battles for them, not our battles for us.

It's gotten so bad that atheism is nearly synonymous with supporting vague ideas of unfounded mass-equality or 'anti-traditional' notions; a mass-equality that is directly opposed to meritocracy and expertise that we so claim to support.

This is why I, nor my good friends never say we are atheists, because of modern-atheist hypocrisy. Atheism became the the thing is swore to fight against.

MrPudding

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Only in Ireland. Repeat: only in Ireland. And repeat one more time: Only in Ireland.

No. Not only in Ireland.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=being+sacked+pregnant+catholic&oq=being+sacked+pregnant+catholic&gs_l=serp.3...17458.34970.8.35605.41.36.0.0.0.1.171.3805.5j31.36.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.serp.4UrnR4TFktw&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k&fp=588231ff67863615&biw=1680&bih=926

MrP

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

On what basis?

The thing is, while I'm not advocating discrimination purely along these lines, these attributes are indeed real and part of the natural factors of the world we live in, so how can they not come into the equation regarding the assigning of values? I think they must be regarded, because to pretend they don't have an impact in the real world would be fraudulent and intellectually dishonest.

Today, egalitarian-progressivism denies that sex, ethnic group, religion, martial status has any bearing on what an individual is capable of, when they do. Ex: They did a study in Oz testing male and female 'firefighters', consisting of strength and endurance to scale walls, ladders, break down doors with body weight etc. The usual things a firefighter must do. All men passed in the experiment, while less than 20% did. I'll see can I pull this up for you.

Only the ideologically blind can't see obvious differences that biology qualities and diversity can produce on body, mind, personality and spirit, which can in turn affect capabilities.





I do fully agree with this type of discrimination, but my point as in the paragraph above, is that the above can impact merit, talent and ability. The two discrimination's are inseparable to a point [discrimination defined as the ability to assign value to things of differing worth by intellection] . Yes, I'm a heretic - to the modern masses of close-minded: sex, religion, race can definitely affect ability, value and potential future merit.

On a side note I don't agree with those thinkers, or purely communistic / collectivist ideology, or any ideology that can only ascribes material-utilitarian values to things. These ideas tend to promote mediocrity, reducing everything down to the lowest value of understanding at which is the only point people truly can be made 'equal'. Yet in actual fact all that this does is bring down the overall potential quality, merit, creativity and otherwise, of the society itself.

This was the point of my original post. Atheists seem now to be fully committed to lowering all standards to accommodate perceived and politically-invented 'inequalities', so that out of some misguided feeling of compassion, that they may say 'everyone is now equal, when previously they were not,yay!". Yet, there is no basis whatsoever for ascribing this mass-equality in the first place, least of all scientific.

In the end all that has actually happened is the politicization of atheism [whereby it's no longer atheism], and outside forces manipulate atheist thought into fighting their battles for them, not our battles for us.

It's gotten so bad that atheism is nearly synonymous with supporting vague ideas of unfounded mass-equality or 'anti-traditional' notions; a mass-equality that is directly opposed to meritocracy and expertise that we so claim to support.

This is why I, nor my good friends never say we are atheists, because of modern-atheist hypocrisy. Atheism became the the thing is swore to fight against.

You're getting great value out of the thesaurus and word a day calendar John.

sink

Eramen wrote: »

The thing is, while I'm not advocating discrimination purely along these lines, these attributes are indeed real and part of the natural factors of the world we live in, so how can they not come into the equation regarding the assigning of values? I think they must be regarded, because to pretend they don't have an impact in the real world would be fraudulent and intellectually dishonest.

Today, egalitarian-progressivism denies that sex, ethnic group, religion, martial status has any bearing on what an individual is capable of, when they do. Ex: They did a study in Oz testing male and female 'firefighters', consisting of strength and endurance to scale walls, ladders, break down doors with body weight etc. The usual things a firefighter must do. All men passed in the experiment, while less than 20% did. I'll see can I pull this up for you.

Only the ideologically blind can't see obvious differences that biology qualities and diversity can produce on body, mind, personality and spirit, which can in turn affect capabilities.

This is a completely flawed way to go about discerning the worth of a candidate for a position. Take your example of firefighters, if you made the selection criteria that all applicants must be male, you must still test for physical ability because not all men are of equal strength there are going to be men not capable of the task. At the same stage female applicants with the required physical ability are not selected by an extraneous factor that by itself has no baring on their ability to perform the task. You may end up with 95% of qualified candidates male and 5% female but you can at least be assured that all are equally capable of the task.

Take another example. I've heard an unsubstantiated rumor that 40% of lawyers in the top law firms of New York and Washington are ethnic Jews. For the sake of argument I'm going to assume this to be true. Under 2% of the population of the US is Jewish, this means that by simply being Jewish a candidate has a far higher chance of attaining a top position in the legal profession. However to make the criteria for selection to be based upon ones religious/ethnic background is still a extremely flawed way to attribute ability, because not all Jews will posses the ability and your are discounting a massive pool of potential candidate based on a criteria than in and of itself has no baring on ability.

Eramen wrote: »

I do fully agree with this type of discrimination, but my point as in the paragraph above, is that the above can impact merit, talent and ability. The two discrimination's are inseparable to a point [discrimination defined as the ability to assign value to things of differing worth by intellection] . Yes, I'm a heretic - to the modern masses of close-minded: sex, religion, race can definitely affect ability, value and potential future merit.

On a side note I don't agree with those thinkers, or purely communistic / collectivist ideology, or any ideology that can only ascribes material-utilitarian values to things. These ideas tend to promote mediocrity, reducing everything down to the lowest value of understanding at which is the only point people truly can be made 'equal'. Yet in actual fact all that this does is bring down the overall potential quality, merit, creativity and otherwise, of the society itself.

This was the point of my original post. Atheists seem now to be fully committed to lowering all standards to accommodate perceived and politically-invented 'inequalities', so that out of some misguided feeling of compassion, that they may say 'everyone is now equal, when previously they were not,yay!". Yet, there is no basis whatsoever for ascribing this mass-equality in the first place, least of all scientific.

In the end all that has actually happened is the politicization of atheism [whereby it's no longer atheism], and outside forces manipulate atheist thought into fighting their battles for them, not our battles for us.

It's gotten so bad that atheism is nearly synonymous with supporting vague ideas of unfounded mass-equality or 'anti-traditional' notions; a mass-equality that is directly opposed to meritocracy and expertise that we so claim to support.

This is why I, nor my good friends never say we are atheists, because of modern-atheist hypocrisy. Atheism became the the thing is swore to fight against.

You are simply conflating category with ability and while there may be some correlation it is far from absolute and is a deeply flawed method of attributing merit.

sink

Also I must add that historically discrimination based on category has not actually correlated at all with ability. Just look at the segregation of sports in the early 20th century. Candidates were denied positions in the top leagues and teams based on their skin colour, when many of today's top athletes are of the very colour that was discriminated against. It's complete nonsense.

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But it's a complete Labour solution. Look after the current public sector and paid up Union members. Who cares about the rest? Reminds of the way salaries for new teachers were cut by 10% but existing teachers untouched.

WTF are you on about?
No other public or private sector employee can legally be treated the way 'employees' (in reality their employer is the state, but the institution hires and fires) of religious institutions can be treated. This has nothing at all to do with union membership or new vs. existing employees. Actually the teaching unions have been and still are disgracefully mute on this issue.

Galvasean

Those are some nice rants there Eraman, but not particularly related to the topic at hand, ie: homosexuals, atheists, people who have per-marital sex being discriminated against in relation to teaching positions. Do you think these people are less suited to being teachers (if so, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning)? If not, I don't see why you're complaining.

Tim Robbins

ninja900 wrote: »

WTF are you on about?
No other public or private sector employee can legally be treated the way 'employees' (in reality their employer is the state, but the institution hires and fires) of religious institutions can be treated. This has nothing at all to do with union membership or new vs. existing employees. Actually the teaching unions have been and still are disgracefully mute on this issue.

...eh I thought what I said was pretty clear and I am struggling to follow your train of thought. Perhaps we should pass.

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

...eh I thought what I said was pretty clear and I am struggling to follow your train of thought. Perhaps we should pass.

Okay, this:

But it's a complete Labour solution. Look after the current public sector and paid up Union members. Who cares about the rest? Reminds of the way salaries for new teachers were cut by 10% but existing teachers untouched.

How does what's proposed benefits only existing public servants or union members. It's already illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, sexual orientation etc in the private sector.
It's illegal in the public sector too except for the specific exemptions relating to religious bodies.
I think we all agree that teachers should get the same protections in relation to their personal life that all other employees already get.

Tim Robbins

ninja900 wrote: »

Okay, this:



How does what's proposed benefits only existing public servants or union members. It's already illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, sexual orientation etc in the private sector.
It's illegal in the public sector too except for the specific exemptions relating to religious bodies.
I think we all agree that teachers should get the same protections in relation to their personal life that all other employees already get.

so what difference does this bill make then?

Bannasidhe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

so what difference does this bill make then?

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

Explained in the OP.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

...eh I thought what I said was pretty clear and I am struggling to follow your train of thought. Perhaps we should pass.

The law they are changing only applies to certain public sector workers. It's already illegal to discriminate against private sector workers. I don't see how you can argue that this is favoritism.

Tim Robbins

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Explained in the OP.

yes and my point was the legislation should be on hiring and not just firing. So people looking to get into say teaching don't have to pretend they go to mass or pretend they are not gay.

Could you be a bit more precise with what your point is please?

Bannasidhe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

yes and my point was the legislation should be on hiring and not just firing. So people looking to get into say teaching don't have to pretend they go to mass or pretend they are not gay.

Could you be a bit more precise with what your point is please?

Well since at the moment there is a hiring freeze which has no sign of being relaxed personally I think protecting those workers currently in post is a good idea.

Tim Robbins

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well since at the moment there is a hiring freeze which has no sign of being relaxed personally I think protecting those workers currently in post is a good idea.

There is not a hiring freeze. New teachers are on 10% less.

Problem with recent legislation (you did read my post didn't you) is that there was a differentiation made between new workers and current workers. New workers were getting 10% less. This legislation (yes you did read my posts didn't you) carriers on giving existing workers protections that are not available to new workers.

Unions make money by looking after paying members and it is one reason why they have deviated from their original socialist ideals.

Bannasidhe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There is not a hiring freeze. New teachers are on 10% less.

Problem with recent legislation (you did read my post didn't you) is that there was a differentiation made between new workers and current workers. New workers were getting 10% less. This legislation (yes you did read my posts didn't you) carriers on giving existing workers protections that are not available to new workers.

Unions make money by looking after paying members and it is one reason why they have deviated from their original socialist ideals.

Tell those teachers, lecturers and health care workers who can't get jobs that the embargo has been lifted.

I do get your point, and it is a very valid point - but you seem to be suggesting that because no provision is specifically made for new workers that current workers should not be protected.

Unions = don't even get me started on the bloody unions! :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Problem with recent legislation (you did read my post didn't you) is that there was a differentiation made between new workers and current workers. New workers were getting 10% less. This legislation (yes you did read my posts didn't you) carriers on giving existing workers protections that are not available to new workers.

Ah right you just wanted to have a pop at the public sector even if it's totally irrelevant to the thread. Gotcha.

Tim Robbins

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell those teachers, lecturers and health care workers who can't get jobs that the embargo has been lifted.

I do get your point, and it is a very valid point - but you seem to be suggesting that because no provision is specifically made for new workers that current workers should not be protected.

Unions = don't even get me started on the bloody unions! :mad:

My sister is a health care worked and recently got a full time job. She also was allowed to almost immediately go to a 4 day week.

No, I am saying legislation should never differentiate between new workers and existing workers. I am pro-equality. But the Unions pretend they have all these notions of fairness but in reality they just want paying members to keep paying and use a strategy which involves pretending they care about fairness when there are as interested in fairness as any other capitalist organisation.

Tim Robbins

ninja900 wrote: »

Ah right you just wanted to have a pop at the public sector even if it's totally irrelevant to the thread. Gotcha.

It's entirely relevant. Do you have a relevant point yourself?

CerebralCortex

Sarky wrote: »

Will John Waters have enough time to write a long rambling self-indulgent piece of **** to tell us all at length how this is a travesty of justice and something something mysteriousness of reality blahdeblahdeblah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ngGlPoI1vw

Ambersky

Section 37 (1) allows for an exemption to be accorded to religious run institutions from the equality legislation used to protect workers from discrimination . Its illegal for all employers but not for religious employers to discriminate against their employees on any of the following nine grounds - gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community.

If religious employers think you are damaging or threatening their "ethos" an employee can be denied the job or may be dismissed from the job.
There would be grounds to challenge such a case, its not a cut and dried opt out of equality card, the onus would be on the employer to prove the case. Not everyone would want to challenge a dismissal as the case could become national and even international news. The test case still standing is the Eileen Flynn case where a woman lost her job as a teacher because she was seen to be pregnant and living with a married man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Flynn
Not every


The teachers unions the TUI INTO and ASTI have been active in trying to get rid of this section for years.
There is an LGBT joint union teachers support group which is also campaigning against it.
GLEN the Gay Equality Network have been doing a lot of work on this issue too and have been campaigning and producing articles on the issues also for many years. http://www.glen.ie/subpage.aspx?contentid=345&name=the_issues_lgb_teachers

The Employment Equality Acts of 1998 & 2004 (Section 37 i) contains an exemption with regard to religious ethos:

A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if-

a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

http://http://www.glen.ie/subpage.aspx?contentid=345&name=the_issues_lgb_teachers

INTO Submission in Relation to Section 37(1)
Date: March 2007
It is the INTO’s view that Section 37(1) is unnecessary and inappropriate and we are aware that it is perceived as threatening by many of our members. Accordingly, we call for its excision from the Acts by way of an amendment in the forthcoming Bill.

http://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/TeacherSpecialInterestGroups/LesbianGayBisexualTransgenderTeachersGroup/Section371/INTOSubmission/

he President of the TUI in her reply to the Minister for Education referred to the concerns of TUI members.
April 2011
TUI is requesting you here today Minister to do something else for equality. It is time now for the government to repeal the draconian Section t37(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 which relates to religious schools and institutions
It allows them to discriminate against employees/potential employees on religious grounds to maintain their ethos or to prevent an individual from undermining that ethos TUI is of the view that aspects of a person’s private life might be interpreted as undermining the ethos of a particular institution. In particular, lesbian ,gay and transgender teachers are concerned that in religious run schools including Community & Comprehensive schools that being open about their sexual orientation may be prejudicial to their chances of employment and promotion and may lead to discrimination against them. This type of legislation has no place in a new Ireland please repeal this draconian section of the act.

http://http://www.mamanpoulet.com/section-37-of-employment-equality-act-raised-at-teachers-conference/

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's entirely relevant. Do you have a relevant point yourself?

The subject of the thread is discrimination on religious/sexual orientation grounds in employment.
Specifically where this is legalised/tolerated because the 'employer' (who doesn't pay the wages) is a 'religious body'
I've no idea what your point is frankly and I'm not the only one.
Do you really think private sector employers in a recession offer new hires the same starting wage they did before?

Tim Robbins

ninja900 wrote: »

The subject of the thread is discrimination on religious/sexual orientation grounds in employment.
Specifically where this is legalised/tolerated because the 'employer' (who doesn't pay the wages) is a 'religious body'
I've no idea what your point is frankly and I'm not the only one.

It is quite simple. The legislation should apply to hiring as well as firing.

Do you really think private sector employers in a recession offer new hires the same starting wage they did before?

Some do, some don't. Don't see your point.