The Moral Wars

[GDL]

1. Issues where religious groups attempt to impose their particular moral standards on society at large. This is not my issue; I agree with you that religious groups should not be able to do so.

So, Christians should not be allowed to vote their conscience and understanding as educated pursuant to God's Righteous Standards and thereby impose His moral standards on society at large?

You would prefer Christians not have this right and ability to select national leaders and legislation?

 

[GDL]

Another real life example might be applying the generic law about gender discrimination to paid religious employees including priests, ministers, parsons etc.. At the moment in Australia religions are exempted. I would argue that this exemption should cease and employee gender discrimination rules should be applied. Is this an "attempt to interfere with..."?

Yes.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes.

OK
Since this non-discrimination rule applies to all employees, by exempting religion I am affording religion a privilege which no-one else gets. Why should I do this?

By giving religions an exemption I am also discriminating against those women who wish to take up the role of priest, minister etc. How do you justify this discrimination?

OB

 

[Speedwell]

So, Christians should not be allowed to vote their conscience and understanding as educated pursuant to God's Righteous Standards and thereby impose His moral standards on society at large?

You would prefer Christians not have this right and ability to select national leaders and legislation?

We would prefer that it was all the power they had.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can't even spell adhominonem - how could I do it?


Well caught Old Chap. Scratch truism and insert "pious pontification" instead.

OB

Could use deepity

 

[Occams Barber]

So, Christians should not be allowed to vote their conscience and understanding as educated pursuant to God's Righteous Standards and thereby impose His moral standards on society at large?

You would prefer Christians not have this right and ability to select national leaders and legislation?

I think you'll find that the keyword in Paidiske's sentence is 'impose'*

1. Issues where religious groups attempt to impose their particular moral standards on society at large. This is not my issue; I agree with you that religious groups should not be able to do so.

*impose
force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
"the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Could use deepity

Thank You

I now have a new, and very useful, word

OB

 

[GDL]

OK
Since this non-discrimination rule applies to all employees, by exempting religion I am affording religion a privilege which no-one else gets. Why should I do this?

By giving religions an exemption I am also discriminating against those women who wish to take up the role of priest, minister etc. How do you justify this discrimination?

OB

I realize your battles. I think you realize ours. They will continue. We think differently. Differing thoughts are always in conflict. Sometimes compromises are found, but in many there is always an underlying tension and warranted suspicion of ultimate agendas.

At the moment you still have no right to legislate religion, so none of the above is your concern. It seems pretty clear this is not acceptable to you. I understand your plight. I'm on the other side of it. It remains to be seen what the Church will do as the secular attempts to get too far into the Church's business. The Church has a pretty good history of fighting its battles. I don't see this ending soon.

 

[GDL]

We would prefer that it was all the power they had.

Clarify please?

 

[Occams Barber]

I realize your battles. I think you realize ours. They will continue. We think differently. Differing thoughts are always in conflict. Sometimes compromises are found, but in many there is always an underlying tension and warranted suspicion of ultimate agendas.

At the moment you still have no right to legislate religion, so none of the above is your concern. It seems pretty clear this is not acceptable to you. I understand your plight. I'm on the other side of it. It remains to be seen what the Church will do as the secular attempts to get too far into the Church's business. The Church has a pretty good history of fighting its battles. I don't see this ending soon.

That was an answer?
OB

 

[GDL]

I think you'll find that the keyword in Paidiske's sentence is 'impose'*

Agree. That's why I also used it in response.

*impose
force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
"the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"

Unless all are in agreement, the decision expressed in a vote is an imposition of one side over another. Since there is rarely full agreement, some are always being imposed upon. If we don't want to be imposed upon, we're going to need to come to unity of thought and thus agreement. Until we all agree on where we all get our standards and what they are, there will be imposition.

 

[GDL]

That was an answer?

Yes.

Would you rather I just said you have no right to determine much of anything that has to do with how the Church thinks? I basically did say this, but tempered it a bit to be courteous.

If I had a solution for your concerns, I'd surely convey it. Your solution seems to be that you control the Church. Right?

 

[Occams Barber]

Agree. That's why I also used it in response.



Unless all are in agreement, the decision expressed in a vote is an imposition of one side over another. Since there is rarely full agreement, some are always being imposed upon. If we don't want to be imposed upon, we're going to need to come to unity of thought and thus agreement. Until we all agree on where we all get our standards and what they are, there will be imposition.

Be nice and I'll buy you a dictionary for Christmas.

In normal usage, to impose implies the use of force. That's why we don't normally use it in the context of democratic elections.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes.

Would you rather I just said you have no right to determine much of anything that has to do with how the Church thinks? I basically did say this, but tempered it a bit to be courteous.

If I had a solution for your concerns, I'd surely convey it. Your solution seems to be that you control the Church. Right?

I asked you a serious question about how you would justify giving the Church a special exemption allowing it to discriminate against women. I fail to see what that has to do with controlling the Church. I have consistently said throughout this thread that the Church's actions should be consistent with what we expect from the rest of society.

Now - if you can justify special treatment I'm all ears.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

Another real life example might be applying the generic law about gender discrimination to paid religious employees including priests, ministers, parsons etc.. At the moment in Australia religions are exempted. I would argue that this exemption should cease and employee gender discrimination rules should be applied. Is this an "attempt to interfere with..."?

This is kind of an aside, but clergy are not technically employees. As such, workplace law does not apply to us in general.

That said, and well aware of the difficult position I speak from here, as an ordained woman who cops a very great deal of abuse for being an ordained woman...

I would not argue that the government should force churches to ordain women. While I would argue that churches should ordain women (and have done so at length here on CF!), I would hold that it should be the decision of each church to make according to their own understanding of what God asks of them. It does not harm wider society that they refuse (except, perhaps, in the very diffuse way that misogyny and sexism are corrosive to our social fabric by their very existence, but in that case, get back to me when you've dealt with misogyny and sexism effectively by legislative means in secular settings. Federal parliament would seem a good place to start). It would be a gross violation of a faith community were a government to seek to compel such a thing, and it would be deeply damaging in all sorts of ways.

It would be unnecessary, and destructive, and would be a very harsh example of exactly the kind of encroachment I identified in my first post in this thread.

So, Christians should not be allowed to vote their conscience and understanding as educated pursuant to God's Righteous Standards and thereby impose His moral standards on society at large?

You would prefer Christians not have this right and ability to select national leaders and legislation?

Christians should be allowed to vote their conscience. But Christians should not expect that they have the right to impose their moral standards on those who are not Christians. When wider society rejects a Christian moral standard, that is their right, and we should not attempt to be coercive about it.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is kind of an aside, but clergy are not technically employees. As such, workplace law does not apply to us in general.

I'll have to get back to you on the workplace thing. It's been a while but I thought you were given specific exemption. I have a (could-be-wrong) recollection that being paid meant that your employer had responsibilities towards you therefore you needed exemption.

You are given exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Age Discrimination Act.
Religious Exemptions to Anti-Discrimination Law - Go To Court Lawyers

You may be OK with being discriminated against - I'm not, since it restricts the options for women who wish to become religious leaders and (as you said) maintains misogyny. It also sends the wrong message to society as a whole in propping up the male dominance thing.

OB

 

[GDL]

Be nice and I'll buy you a dictionary for Christmas.

In normal usage, to impose implies the use of force. That's why we don't normally use it in the context of democratic elections.

OB

I am being nice, as I already said.

In hopes of nicely assisting you: There's this cool thing called the internet with all kinds of dictionaries at the touch of a button. See here with citations and everything:

impose
(ɪmˈpəʊz)
vb
1. (tr) to establish as something to be obeyed or complied with; enforce: to impose a tax on the people.
2. to force (oneself, one's presence, etc) on another or others; obtrude
3. (intr) to take advantage, as of a person or quality: to impose on someone's kindness.
4. (Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) (tr) printing to arrange (pages) so that after printing and folding the pages will be in the correct order
5. (tr) to pass off deceptively; foist: to impose a hoax on someone.
6. (Ecclesiastical Terms) (tr) (of a bishop or priest) to lay (the hands) on the head of a candidate for certain sacraments
[C15: from Old French imposer, from Latin impōnere to place upon, from pōnere to place, set]
imˈposable adj
imˈposer n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

im•pose
(ɪmˈpoʊz)

v. -posed, -pos•ing. v.t.
1. to apply or establish by or as if by authority: to impose taxes.
2. to thrust intrusively upon others: to impose oneself uninvited.
3. to pass or palm off fraudulently or deceptively.
4. to lay (type pages, plates, etc.) in proper order on a slab of stone or metal and secure in a chase for printing.
5. to inflict, as a penalty.
v.i.
6. to obtrude oneself or one's needs upon others: Are you sure my request doesn't impose?
[1475–85; < Middle French imposer < Latin impōnere to put in or upon, impose =im- im-1 + pōnere to put, place]
im•pos′a•ble, adj.
im•pos′er, n.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Seems pretty clear you like to be the authority for what is normal. Also seems pretty clear that you like to impose only the definition (and culture) you want to be normal. But there's a bit more range to what the word means and how it can be used. And there's a bit more thinking out here that many see as normal, thus determining your views to be abnormal.

The problem is not tough to understand. It's just tough for we mortals to resolve.

 

[Paidiske]

I'll have to get back to you on the workplace thing. It's been a while but I thought you were given specific exemption. I have a (could-be-wrong) recollection that being paid meant that your employer had responsibilities towards you therefore you needed exemption.

There probably is specific exemption to cover people who are actually employees. But certainly for the Anglicans and the Catholics and probably some others, clergy are not legally employees. There was an interesting test case a while back where a Catholic priest tried to take the church to court for failing to pay a minimum wage, and lost, because the court ruled he wasn't an employee (for example).

You may be OK with being discriminated against - I'm not, since it restricts the options for women who wish to become religious leaders and (as you said) maintains misogyny. It also sends the wrong message to society as a whole in propping up the male dominance thing.

I'm not okay with it, but I'm also not okay with the government trying to compel religious observance against people's actual beliefs. Conscience must be respected. When it comes to discrimination, I am playing the long game of working by example and persuasion, rather than compulsion, because I believe compulsion would also be a grave evil.

Can you imagine what it would actually do to a religious community were the government to try to compel this? Schism, conflict, underground movements, radicalisation, and so on. Do you think a woman ordained because the government tried to tell a church that it must ordain women would be accepted in the role? Or outcast and abused by her own community? The latter happens too much even when the religious community has made the decision (usually with great angst and conflict).

Government compulsion isn't the answer.

 

[Speedwell]

Clarify please?

Your adherence to the Christian faith gets you one vote at election time. You are due no more political power than that, the same as any non-Christian.

 

[GDL]

I asked you a serious question about how you would justify giving the Church a special exemption allowing it to discriminate against women. I fail to see what that has to do with controlling the Church. I have consistently said throughout this thread that the Church's actions should be consistent with what we expect from the rest of society.

Your failure to see your error in reasoning is evident.

Another real life example might be applying the generic law about gender discrimination to paid religious employees including priests, ministers, parsons etc.. At the moment in Australia religions are exempted. I would argue that this exemption should cease and employee gender discrimination rules should be applied. Is this an "attempt to interfere with..."?

IOW, you would argue to control what the Church thinks and does. Yes it would be an attempt to interfere, even impose, even control.

The Church's positions on such things are based upon authority that it sees as higher than secular authority. Your "generic law" does not apply to the Church as you would have it.

Since this non-discrimination rule applies to all employees, by exempting religion I am affording religion a privilege which no-one else gets. Why should I do this?

You are not exempting religion - the Church - or affording it a privilege. It is exempt and not subject to your authority to control it. Just the fact that you think you're affording it something reveals your thinking about your authority over religion.

By giving religions an exemption I am also discriminating against those women who wish to take up the role of priest, minister etc. How do you justify this discrimination?

Again, religions - the Church - is exempt and you're not giving it anything.

If "religions" understanding of it's standards pursuant to its authority is that women are not to be in these positions, then these are its standards, and it disagrees with you regarding what is "discrimination."

Since you have no authority over such things, you have no part in any self-perceived discrimination. Your premise is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong.

I gave you credit that we would just cut to the chase. Therefore I answered you with a step or 2 beyond this.