Attacks on religious freedom?

tommy2bad

From a post by JimiTime;

My only interest for the last while here was the LGBT agenda and politik (On the back of which I believe religious freedom will come under increasing attack), both informing people of what is happening with it, and looking at the arguments that come against me and the manner of their delivery in order to be informed for myself.

The thread in question is a more chatty one and Jimi may not have thought through this but anyway...

How? why? What do you mean by religious freedom will come under attack?


This isn't for discussing LGBT issues, theirs a thread for that, I'm more interested in how the idea that extending rights to others is an attack on rights we have!

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

From a post by JimiTime;


The thread in question is a more chatty one and Jimi may not have thought through this but anyway...

How? why? What do you mean by religious freedom will come under attack?


This isn't for discussing LGBT issues, theirs a thread for that, I'm more interested in how the idea that extending rights to others is an attack on rights we have!

I imagine he is concerned about Christians loosing the right to free speech and the right to private practice if it is made a criminal offence to state that Christianity believes homosexual practice is a sin, and a criminal offence to refuse to accommodate homosexual practice (such as hotel owners turning away gay couples). I think he is also concerned about the "homosexual agenda" being taught in school, and parents not being able to withdraw their children from classes the parents feel are immoral.

I do appreciate that over zealous liberals can become principle-less when they feel they are "fighting the good fight", such as attempting to block Christians from freedom of expression.

Having said that a lot of these "attacks" on freedoms are actually just things like State workers being required to be in-line with State policy, such as civil registries being required to perform gay marriage.

The State and all agents of the State while acting for the State should be required to reflect state policies and in a secular society not promote or appear to promote any particular religious position.

As for children in school, well it just goes back to the old example would you allow parents to withdraw students from a school teaching black people are equal to white people. Child are owed an education, the parents own particular biases have to be considered but should not be allowed completely block that.

sbsquarepants

tommy2bad wrote: »

This isn't for discussing LGBT issues, theirs a thread for that, I'm more interested in how the idea that extending rights to others is an attack on rights we have!

Haven't read the other thread but the simple answer is that it is not.

There is a very distinct line between being allowed to say "i believe x,y and z are wrong and therefore i don't do them" and saying "i believe x,y and z are wrong and therefore you can't do them". It's a deliberate bluring of the lines to try to extend that to things like hotels not allowing gay couples and so on. It's perfectly legal to not like black people (idiotic, but legal), it's a different matter entirely to ban them from your hotel.

I remember seeing a very good poster on the internet before that said simply "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married" - Seems like such a simple solution!

Manach

Rights are ill-defined concept, ranging from implicit or explicit, backed up by domestic and international - but in all cases by a state. Historically trends show that the State has gathered in competency into various fields that had been in the remit of non-state actors. Various political theories give an underpinning to the assumption that the state does not act in the best interests of all, but that of either special interest groups or dominant political community. One of these fields is in education.

Taxes are extracted with the underlying understanding this is for the betterment of all future generations. However, with the growth of a powerful and standardizing body as the state, parental/social groups who are not now part of the underlying Zeitgest of the times are losing their protection on how they set the moral/cultural tone of their own community establishments.

Case in point the attempt by Labour in the name of equality to remove the religious freedom, to allow the school to uphold it's ethos in choosing whom ever to employ (Employment Equality Act. Section 37). It is an attack both on the boards concept duty to the care of their pupils to be the best judge of who to appoint and promotes a statist invention on parental choice to raise their children attuned to that ethos.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Rights are ill-defined concept, ranging from implicit or explicit, backed up by domestic and international - but in all cases by a state. Historically trends show that the State has gathered in competency into various fields that had been in the remit of non-state actors. Various political theories give an underpinning to the assumption that the state does not act in the best interests of all, but that of either special interest groups or dominant political community. One of these fields is in education.

Taxes are extracted with the underlying understanding this is for the betterment of all future generations. However, with the growth of a powerful and standardizing body as the state, parental/social groups who are not now part of the underlying Zeitgest of the times are losing their protection on how they set the moral/cultural tone of their own community establishments.

Case in point the attempt by Labour in the name of equality to remove the religious freedom, to allow the school to uphold it's ethos in choosing whom ever to employ (Employment Equality Act. Section 37). It is an attack both on the boards concept duty to the care of their pupils to be the best judge of who to appoint and promotes a statist invention on parental choice to raise their children attuned to that ethos.

Well that is because we no longer recognize a parents right over their children as the highest authority.

Eg we no longer allow parents to decide if their child is going to work or not. If you put your child to work you are violating societies standards and we will protect your child from you.

The issue here is that some people reject societies standards as being incompatible with their own standards, and desire that their standards take precedence when educating their children.

While I have sympathy for them that ship has sailed. We no longer prioritize parental standards if they are in conflict with societies standards in relation to harming your child, which includes rejection of ethos that is considered damaging.

Or to put it another way, society won't take the risk that your gay child will grow up hating himself if he is taught in a school that bans gay teachers, any more than society will take the risk that he will grow up uneducated if you make your child work for 6 hours a day.

Most Christians who object to this accept societies role in some matters (such as making a child work) but only in areas they personally agree with, which is rather hypocritical.

Corkfeen

Manach , at this point in time the vast majority of schools in the country are Catholic. As long as this is the case, it's an issue to endorse discrimination based on religious ethos. Essentially it left the door open to fire perfectly good teachers because of their sexual orientation or being divorced etc. Teaching should not be a career that is made inaccessible purely due to a conflict in ethos. Fire whoever you want when you don't hold the majority of the schools.

tommy2bad

@Manach, isn't the issue that these were not private schools but public schools run by a private organisational on behalf of the state who payed for the hob. Pipers and tunes.

Juza1973

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that is because we no longer recognize a parents right over their children as the highest authority.

Eg we no longer allow parents to decide if their child is going to work or not. If you put your child to work you are violating societies standards and we will protect your child from you.

The issue here is that some people reject societies standards as being incompatible with their own standards, and desire that their standards take precedence when educating their children.

While I have sympathy for them that ship has sailed. We no longer prioritize parental standards if they are in conflict with societies standards in relation to harming your child, which includes rejection of ethos that is considered damaging.

Or to put it another way, society won't take the risk that your gay child will grow up hating himself if he is taught in a school that bans gay teachers, any more than society will take the risk that he will grow up uneducated if you make your child work for 6 hours a day.

Most Christians who object to this accept societies role in some matters (such as making a child work) but only in areas they personally agree with, which is rather hypocritical.

It was indeed unwise to support certain ideas based on the slogan "you can not do that but you should let people who want to do that". There was never any intention on those who proposed them to create a coexistence, just to make them the norm so that they could strike those who opposed them in the future.

This is why I would never support anymore any organisation who does not support my ethos.

Zombrex

Juza1973 wrote: »

It was indeed unwise to support certain ideas based on the slogan "you can not do that but you should let people who want to do that". There was never any intention on those who proposed them to create a coexistence, just to make them the norm so that they could strike those who opposed them in the future.

This is why I would never support anymore any organisation who does not support my ethos.

Sorry, what?

Manach

Mostly in response to Zombex.
The change in the culture of rights over children has been a gradual one: with high/low points being such as the Gillick judgement. However you seem to be co-equivalatising society with the state: with the various societal pressure groups that push society in their own direction using the power of the state as its cats paw being ignored. The push to sideline the role of parents has a root in academic circles and historical origins in a belief that an overseeing state knows what is best to train the workers of the future. To move from a matter which is of benefit to all, ie preventing the over-exploitation of children during term to a progression to directly promotion practices that are antithetic to certain parents is tenuous at best.
The state and not society has the monopoly on the forced-collection of tax revenue and as such (IMHO) has a minimum duty to engage with parents and also those staff who work in schools who hold fast to that ethos and may suffer career consequences for objecting to state imposed changes.
The Irish constitution has recognised the vital role of education, but it also recognised (at the moment so many cut and paste changes difficult to keep track) the role of parents and their ethos with the state being the active provider of the resources but not the master of such.

shruikan2553

Compare it to me drinking a can of coke. Some guy who is into his health sees me drinking a can a coke and has 3 options

1. Ignore me as it is having no effect on him
2. Tell me it is bad for me
3. try and take it away from me "for my own good"

1 is what most people would do, he doesnt drink coke, I do. We're both happy.
With 2 if he keeps pushing it I can tell him where he can shove the can when I am done with it and 3 people will think he is a **** and could possibly end in him getting a kick to the knee.

By not allowing 3 are we removing any of his rights? No. People have the right to disagree with something and say it but if they act on it in a way that reduces the other persons quality of life we dont allow it. It is HIS belief, not mine so why should I be the one that losses out when all he has to do is not drink a can of coke.

It is the same for anything to do with religious freedom, you have the right to believe it but you dont have the right to force it on others. People seem to think that if they are not allowed to do this their "freedom" is being taken away.

Corkfeen

So Manach, i'm an atheist as you know and if I hypothetically became teacher. Never mentioning the fact that I was an atheist in the classroom etc, tell me why the hell should they have the right to fire me? They would have the same right to do this if I was gay,had a divorce etc. Most teachers will have to teach in a Catholic ethos school but should schools have a right to discriminate on such controversial grounds when you are effectively a monopoly that is largely funded by the state.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

The change in the culture of rights over children has been a gradual one: with high/low points being such as the Gillick judgement.

It has, and it has come in response to the realisation that parents are more likely to damage their children than the State is.

We tend to forget this because we have so many restrictions on what parents can do to their children already in modern society that we take parents not abusing their children as a given. So, because parents are so restricted now, some mistakenly assume that parents by far the best to manage their children.

The reality is that if we simply gave parents a free for all with regard to their children half the children in this country would be out of school and working to bring in extra money for their parents, while probably being physically abused at the same time.

Manach wrote: »

However you seem to be co-equivalatising society with the state: with the various societal pressure groups that push society in their own direction using the power of the state as its cats paw being ignored.

In a democracy the State is a representation of the will of society.

Manach wrote: »

The push to sideline the role of parents has a root in academic circles and historical origins in a belief that an overseeing state knows what is best to train the workers of the future.

Yeah spare me the right-wing Christian conspiracy theories nonsense.

The "push to sideline" the role of parents grew out of the moves to address the extreme poverty and child abuse found in Victorian England and other European countries during the early 19th century. During this time children began work before they turned 10, were regularly physically abused by their parents and lacked even the most basic education.

Manach wrote: »

To move from a matter which is of benefit to all, ie preventing the over-exploitation of children during term to a progression to directly promotion practices that are antithetic to certain parents is tenuous at best.

Those are the same thing Manach. The "over-exploitation" of children involves promoting practices that are the antithetic to certain parents, because it is "certain parents" who promote the exploitation of their children.

Like I said there is no difference between you wanting to harm your child by making him work (because its good and moral for him), and wanting to teach him that homosexual relationships are wrong and to be avoided (because it is good and moral for him).

The only different is you are already on the right side of the child labour concept, where as you are still on the wrong side of the homosexuality is wrong concept.

Manach wrote: »

The state and not society has the monopoly on the forced-collection of tax revenue and as such (IMHO) has a minimum duty to engage with parents

Yes, and that "minimum duty" includes countering the damage anti-homosexual bigotry does to children.

Manach

"O Brave New World that has people such as this". A Shakespeare play that has a central theme of a parent's regard for his child.

So the initial question of religious freedom being lost, like the basic premise of religion, has changed to that of a universal nature of who knows best for the child.
Instead of adding new data; my own experience of the earnest types who comprise and report to commissions that carefully craft the rights, roles, and dehierarchication of society
I'll rely on previous poster's opinion as my evidence.
> That the state has a priority, knows best what is good for society and hence the child. The money raised from parents by taxes has fettered a chain of obligation which has instead of a slippery slope, had converted to a stairwell where common-sense propositions have lead to this current state and what yet unrealised future states.

O brave new world.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

So the initial question of religious freedom being lost, like the basic premise of religion, has changed to that of a universal nature of who knows best for the child.

It has always been that issue. Parents have limited scope to harm or disadvantage their children before the State steps in. And that is a very good things, because left entirely to their own devices parents have a tendency to harm or disadvantage their children.

Saying "but but but its my religion..." isn't an excuse. The Cannanites thought it was their religious freedom to sacrifice their children to their gods, after all ...

tommy2bad

Zombrex
And that is a very good things, because left entirely to their own devices parents have a tendency to harm or disadvantage their children.

Do they? Any evidence of this?

Is this all about "I know whats best for everyone" and the odd propensity people have to impose their standards on everyone else (never questioning if their projecting their faults at the same time). Even the liberal secular types do this, Ban religious education from the schools, ban religious education until they are adults. We hear all sorts of restrictions proposed from both sides, maybe the religious fear loosing rights because that's what they would do if things were reversed?

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do they? Any evidence of this?

Yes

lmaopml

These are pictures of children brought up during the great depression in America. There are also plenty of pictures of all kinds of 'work' that children were involved in over generations that were effected by various different circumstances when survival was the foremost problem -

Saying this is a reason why the 'State' knows best and families are secondary is bullshyte - because the State is always playing to the circumstances, economic or otherwise and has it's own 'politics' and survival methods that's part of the game because they are made up of merely people - the family on the other hand is 'raw' life and always has been. It doesn't say anything in those pictures about whether the child was 'loved' or no - there are plenty of kids that where loved very much and needs did what needs must, and there are plenty of kids that could be loved a whole lot more world over. The 'State' has never particularly been a some kind of separate hero that was made up of super people only - but the people have always been petitioning and 'that' is the power of family.

It's actually quite sickening this forum of late - talk about total bullshyte prevailing.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Saying this is a reason why the 'State' knows best and families are secondary is bullshyte - because the State is always playing to the circumstances, economic or otherwise and has it's own 'politics' and survival methods that's part of the game because they are made up of merely people - the family on the other hand is 'raw' life and always has been.

What?

lmaopml wrote: »

It doesn't say anything in those pictures about whether the child was 'loved' or no

Child labour is not ok because you claim to "love" your children Imaopml.

lmaopml wrote: »

there are plenty of kids that where loved very much and needs did what needs must

The idea that child labour was necessary for the economic survival of the poor is a myth

Myth 1: Children have to work because of poverty.

Admittedly, most child laborers come from poor families. However, poverty is not the only reason children work, nor is it as central as many people think. Recent studies examining the role poverty plays in child labor have found that other factors, such as parents' low regard for the education of children, particularly girls, and failing education systems contribute equally to child labor. Too often poverty is used as an excuse for child labor. Yet, it is a myth that child labor will never be eliminated until poverty is eradicated. Conversely, poverty will never be eradicated until child laborers are redirected to schools. Child labor perpetuates poverty.

While economic development tends to reduce child labor in the long run, poverty does not necessarily induce child labor or hinder children from attending school. The picture varies. In many poor households, some children (particularly boys) are singled out to attend school. Additionally, there are states within less developed countries where child labor is not extensively practiced. For instance, Kerala State in India has virtually abolished child labor.

http://www.knowchildlabor.org/child_labor/child_labor_myths.php#myth1

So yeah, thanks for demonstrating my point there lmaopml :rolleyes:

georgieporgy

I grew up on a farm and did a fair bit of work as soon as I learnt to walk. Work doesn't have to mean slavery. I guess catholics seem to get the balance right

tommy2bad

I duno about getting the balance right. Today I was at a school reunion and their was photos of past pupils going back to when the school opened. Several photos showed them starting work in the local mines. 13 and 15 year old brothers starting work the week after leaving school. I asked how common that was and the answer was, as the miner was paid by the cart not the hour, a lot would get the whole family in on the job. It's not that the parents were exploiting these children it was a system of grinding poverty driven by the greed of the mine/factory owners.