more religious discrimination

Originally posted by ua41
Maybe I misinterpreted her position on the council- when I read the article it was my impression she has a vote in say for same sex adoption, hence influence over social issues.

It is also not my suggestion to screen for mentioned criteria for a spot in government. But I think it is a requirement of those in government to set aside their biases for the well being of the people they are supposed to support.

I see that the title is misleading. The first paragraph clarifies the issue, as it says 'she asked to abstain from voting in same-sex cases.' It does not seem that she actually vetoed same-sex adoptions; she simply asked not to be involved in processing their applications.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
just stop whining, for goodness sake and post something with relevance!

Your dismissive and condescending attitude comes to the surface every time someone disagrees with you. Is this a reflection of your god, jehovah?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Sound like it keeps adoption programs from discriminating against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation rather than judging their merits as parents. Sounds like "protection" to me. Adoption programs, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be given the option of continuing to discriminate.

Well, I believe they should, recognising their right to ...[text shortened]... sation must process same-sex adoptions, it interferes with the autonomy of that organisation.[/b]

They are free to practice their religion all they like. What they are not free to do is continue to practice discrimination. Seems like you fail to grasp the purpose of having anti-discrimination legislation. Women, minorities of all types and other victims of discrimination must cringe when they come across mindsets such as yours (unless they are hypocrites of course). Whether you recognize it or not, those who practice discrimination almost always believe they are "justified" in doing so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
They are free to practice their religion all they like. What they are not free to do is continue to practice discrimination. Seems like you fail to grasp the purpose of having anti-discrimination legislation. 1

They are free to practice their religion all they like. What they are not free to do is continue to practice discrimination.

But they are not free to practice their religion when religious institutions are compelled against their religious doctrines and must compromise their mission. Discrimination is a key part of any religious organisation if it is to maintain its core religious commitments. Churches need to be able, for example, to exclude members who disagree with their doctrines or bar from ministry those whom, according to their doctrines, cannot be ordained. This is a basic right of freedom of association. Religious organisations also need to be able to act according to their core religious commitments. Can't you see that the state, when it forces Catholic agencies to process same-sex adoption, compromises the Catholic mission? Would you also require Catholic ministers to witness to same-sex marriages?

Women and minorities of all types must cringe when they come across mindsets such as yours (unless they are hypocrites of course).

Why? I do not support unjust discrimination. I am appalled that women are under-represented in business and law. I am also troubled by studies which show that homosexuals in the law profession often must keep their relationships private in the workplace for fear of stigma. I am personally embarrassed in my own country where indigenous Australians continue to have low job prospects. What I deny is that protection against discrimination should in turn trample the rights of religious organisations. I accept that non-discrimination are a necessary way to protect the rights of minorities; I just do not see why they should in turn compromise the equally important rights of religious organisations.

Catholic schools, hospitals and adoption agencies exist primarily for the purpose of serving the Catholic community. Catholic schools are established so that Catholic parents can have their children instructed about the faith and formed in an environment conducive to Catholic values. Catholic hospitals are there to ensure that Catholic patients have access to the sacraments and can receive spiritual help as well as medical attention. Likewise, Catholic adoption agencies exist so that a Catholic mother can ensure her child is still raised in a family that is not antithetical to her faith.

Now I understand that not all parents are Catholic who send their children to schools and obviously Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies, as well as many other associated welfare institutions, are used by non-Catholics. These services have a secondary social justice mission -- but that does not override or negate their primary Catholic role. I also appreciate that the government has an interest in all these institutions. Govenrment must obviously ensure Catholic schools meet a certain curricular standard. Sometimes the boundaries between Catholic and government interest are tendentious, such as in sexual education. The Catholic Church obviously wants to defer teaching sex ed and restrict the content whereas government obviously has to respond to the issue of STI prevalence and teenage pregnancy.

What you fail to explain here is why government should privilege the rights of homosexuals to non-discrimination over the rights of religious institutions to maintain their core religious ideals. Why should the state be allowed to tell a parent that they have no right to ensure that their child's teacher is Catholic when they send their children to a Catholic school or that a Catholic hospital must offer referrals to abortion clinics (as in my country) when that completely opposes its Catholic purpose? I can only guess a few explanations: you do not regard the right to freedom of religion seriously or you restrict its meaning so that it does not extend to all activities of religious organisations. Again, this is just ideological thuggery.

Whether you recognize it or not, those who practice discrimination almost always believe they are "justified" in doing so.

Well, obviously. Most people, whatever they do, like to think that they are justified. What's your point?

Originally posted by caissad4
Your dismissive and condescending attitude comes to the surface every time someone disagrees with you. Is this a reflection of your god, jehovah?

Caissad4 if i condescend to dismiss your claim and ask you to post something with even a remote semblance of relevance to the topic under discussion, will you acquiesce? You see my attitude, or rather, your opinion of my attitude is not the topic of discussion, ok, ok, i know, you fancy me and cant help yourself, but please, this is a public forum, these displays of affection are not fitting, if you want my attention, lets play chess 😛

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]They are free to practice their religion all they like. What they are not free to do is continue to practice discrimination.

But they are not free to practice their religion when religious institutions are compelled against their religious doctrines and must compromise their mission. Discrimination is a key part of any religious organisati ...[text shortened]... y. Most people, whatever they do, like to think that they are justified. What's your point?[/b]

my sister is a non catholic yet she sends her kids to a catholic school - great post by the way 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes ...[text shortened]... professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

The UK is short of 10,000 foster carers. That's 10,000 children who are without families, who are living in a 'half-way' house and are without the love a family provides. Now if this women was getting in the way of some of these children reaching a caring couple, then the best thing she could do is move aside and let someone else do the job.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The UK is short of 10,000 foster carers. That's 10,000 children who are without families, who are living in a 'half-way' house and are without the love a family provides. Now if this women was getting in the way of some of these children reaching a caring couple, then the best thing she could do is move aside and let someone else do the job.

As Conrau has repeatedly pointed out, she was 'getting in the way', of no one, she simply asked to abstain from voting on homosexual cases, that does not mean that others could not. Again, as Conrau has pointed out, rather excellently, it amounts to nothing short of 'idealogical thuggery', to borrow his term, for clearly the lady in question was adequately qualified,as a health professional, therefore, her dismissal must have been on some other basis, that of religious discrimination.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As Conrau has repeatedly pointed out, she was 'getting in the way', of no one, she simply asked to abstain from voting on homosexual cases, that does not mean that others could not. Again, as Conrau has pointed out, rather excellently, it amounts to nothing short of 'idealogical thuggery', to borrow his term, for clearly the lady in question was ade ...[text shortened]... erefore, her dismissal must have been on some other basis, that of religious discrimination.

No, he didn't say this amounted to 'ideological thuggery'. This is Conrau's first post -

In this case, however, there do seem to be legitimate grounds for her sacking. Her religious convictions obstruct her ability to fulfill the requirements of her job. As an employee of a local council, she needs to be able to implement the policies of that council. Her situation is not unique. Thousands of members of the civil service have to implement government policies which they may not agree with or have voted for. If they refuse to do this, however, they cannot claim religious grounds; they have to retire from the service. Religious scruples do not permit them to violate the political mandate of elected representatives.

Go re-read his post. This is what he said amounted to 'ideological thuggery' -

why government should privilege the rights of homosexuals to non-discrimination over the rights of religious institutions to maintain their core religious ideals.

Your getting confused.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No, he didn't say this amounted to 'ideological thuggery'. This is Conrau's first post -

In this case, however, there do seem to be legitimate grounds for her sacking. Her religious convictions obstruct her ability to fulfill the requirements of her job. As an employee of a local council, she needs to be able to implement the policies of that coun ...[text shortened]... hem to violate the political mandate of elected representatives.

Go re-read his post.

actually i was referring to his later post in which he states that organisations, such as the catholic church and by extension individuals who are coerced to take a stance against their own tenets and convictions are the victims of 'ideological thuggery'. The matter is quite clear in my own mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i was referring to his later post in which he states that organisations, such as the catholic church and by extension individuals who are coerced to take a stance against their own tenets and convictions are the victims of 'ideological thuggery'.

But she works for an elected council and needs to implement the policies of that council. If she can't do that then she has to move aside and let someone else do the job.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But she works for an elected council and needs to implement the policies of that council. If she can't do that then she has to move aside and let someone else do the job.

ok, dear Noobster, however, are we willing to state that she was not adequately qualified as a health professional, no we cannot state that, for she was a Doctor, secondly, what is more important, the policies of government or the welfare of children? again we must agree that the welfare of children take precedence and as a health professional she stated that it was in the best interests of children that they should be fostered by a heterosexual family. Being coerced to go against her professional opinion because of a policy is tantamount to thuggery, is it not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, dear Noobster, however, are we willing to state that she was not adequately qualified as a health professional, no we cannot state that, for she was a Doctor, secondly, what is more important, the policies of government or the welfare of children? again we must agree that the welfare of children take precedence and as a health professional she s ...[text shortened]... to go against her professional opinion because of a policy is tantamount to thuggery, is it not?

Being a doctor doesn't automatically qualify you to categorically dismiss a guardian based on sexual orientation.

Did she go as far as to evaluate on a case by case basis that homosexual couples are *always* worse care givers than heterosexual couples?

I very much doubt it. Without having more information, I can only conclude that it was a personal opinion, not a professional one.

However, I am only acting on the information I am provided. That is the problem with debates like this. We can only draw conclusions at face value. The media does not provide the whole story.

Originally posted by lausey
Being a doctor doesn't automatically qualify you to categorically dismiss a guardian based on sexual orientation.

Did she go as far as to evaluate on a case by case basis that homosexual couples are *always* worse care givers than heterosexual couples?

I very much doubt it. Without having more information, I can only conclude that it was a personal opin ...[text shortened]... e this. We can only draw conclusions at face value. The media does not provide the whole story.

yes you are correct we have only partial details, she states, that in her opinion, a child's best interests are served within the framework of a heterosexual family. Now if you are of that opinion and you genuinely have a child's best interests at heart, then there is a conflict of interests, for the government agency has stated that homosexual couple should be considered and she thinks that they are unsuitable., but that is not the real issue here. The issue here is that a professional person, cannot conscientiously operate in an environment which runs contrary to her professional opinion and possibly religious convictions and has been discriminated against on that basis.

I reject the terms sexual orientation, i will accept preference, orientation reeks of manipulation and is nothing short of propaganda, but that is a separate issue.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct we have only partial details, she states, that in her opinion, a child's best interests are served within the framework of a heterosexual family. Now if you are of that opinion and you genuinely have a child's best interests at heart, then their is a conflict of opinion, for the government agency has stated that homosexual couple ...[text shortened]... tation reeks of manipulation and is nothing short of propaganda, but that is a separate issue.

Let's break it down.

Firstly, she is a doctor, so therefore she has studied using the scientific framework and has to base her views on the evidence. As i understand it, and i have had a brief look, there are no studies that show a child adopted into a same-sex household does any better or worse than a child adopted into a hetrosexual household. How good a parent is, has nothing to do with their sexual preference.

Dr Matthews views on this issue are founded on her religious views, as there is no evidence to back up her professional views. Personally i would like to have someone in her poistion base their reasonings on the evidence and not the writings of a Bronze Age desert tribesman.