Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10801528)
Quote
religious workers can't sue their employers for job discrimination because anti-discrimination laws allow for a "ministerial exception."
I just don't understand why religious outfits are exempt from some of the governing laws.
Quote
The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
Why can't any boss register themselves as a religion and then come up with their own set of moral rules by which they can fire whomever they choose?
Quote from: Stevil on April 25, 2012, 10:24:06 PM
Why can't any boss register themselves as a religion and then come up with their own set of moral rules by which they can fire whomever they choose?
Heh, yes, clever people have already exploited that particular ruse. It's pretty clear that when Scientology was being set up, it was decided that calling the organization a religion would have multiple advantages, which has been borne out by subsequent events. The question of "ministerial exemption" has allowed Scientology to skate away from suits brought by former members. The current US Supreme Court seems to have come down on the side of religious organizations (I could use scare quotes for *religious* but really I consider them almost integral to the word, in this context):
Infinite Complacency | "Supreme Court backs ministerial exception" (http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2012/01/supreme-court-confirms-ministerial.html)
Hmmm, that article states that "ministerial exception" refers to ministerial jobs specifically.
But then it goes on to claim that a teacher is a ministerial position and basically by the court stating "We are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister" then they are leaving it to the church to tell them who is a minister, which obviously will be anyone that the church decides to fire.
If you threaten with legal action, then that alone can be grounds for dismissal "The church argued that her threat of legal action had violated a Church tenet that disputes should be settled internally."
It seems to me that the government is giving the church a stake, some kindling and matches and saying, do want you want to your employees, we wont interfere.
Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof. Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394219-marine-who-criticized-president-obama-on-facebook-to-be-discharged?lite) for the rest of us.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof. Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394219-marine-who-criticized-president-obama-on-facebook-to-be-discharged?lite) for the rest of us.
Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.
Quote from: Stevil on April 26, 2012, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof. Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394219-marine-who-criticized-president-obama-on-facebook-to-be-discharged?lite) for the rest of us.
Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.
Separation of Church and State. It is "special" in that our society has apparently made it so.
I wish I knew more about 501(c)(3) status and law.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 26, 2012, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof. Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394219-marine-who-criticized-president-obama-on-facebook-to-be-discharged?lite) for the rest of us.
Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.
Separation of Church and State. It is "special" in that our society has apparently made it so.
I wish I knew more about 501(c)(3) status and law.
I wonder what my country is like with regards to law. In many ways we seem to follow UK or USA laws, but we aren't heavily religious like USA. I presume, since Catholic church practice in NZ then we are OK with them discriminating against women and gays
Quote from: Stevil on April 26, 2012, 10:55:58 PM
I wonder what my country is like with regards to law. In many ways we seem to follow UK or USA laws, but we aren't heavily religious like USA. I presume, since Catholic church practice in NZ then we are OK with them discriminating against women and gays
I have no idea of every moderator's position here at HAF in regard to atheist vs theist or believer, however I don't think I would find much issue if Whitney didn't want to have a theist, much less a strong Christian, as a moderator. I don't think that would be discrimination as this is a private site and paid by (presumably) Whitney. It is at her discretion how HAF is run.
Similarly, it is so with private organizations with 501(c)(3) status (U.S.).
Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?
Yes, that would be discrimination and I wouldn't want to be part of the community if that were the case.
If we discriminate, we create oppression, which creates conflict, which creates wars, this makes society unsafe and impacts me greatly.
Let's say USA people (in general) decide that they don't like hispanic people, therefore they don't hire them, and if they do, they give them menial jobs and treat them poorly.
Many hispanics would then revert to crime in order to survive, others may beg or live in squaller communities. This will cause much racial tension leading to many conflicts. This does not lead to stable and safe society.
Similar could be said if a majority Christian society decides not to employ non Christians.
If discrimination is acceptable, what is to say that my society won't turn against me and decide I am to be discriminated against?
Discrimination is dangerous, as a society we need to have an inclusive view to members of our society if we want to be safe.
Obviously when discrimination is limited to religious organisations then there are many non religious jobs that those discriminated people can go for instead. But I don't like "special" groups, as a society, one rule fits all ought to be in place. When religious outfits are providing schools, hospitals etc then this reduces the opportunities for the discriminated against people and hence reduces their lifestyles (financially and career wise).
Maybe if the government must for some reason give religious organisations discrimination exemptions it should be limited to core church activities e.g. church sermons/service etc. Churches running schools or charities or hospitals most certainly should play by the rules of society.
It is interesting though, give a religious organisation some rope and they will choose to misbehave. I wonder if these behaviours turn modern day people away from religious organisations?
Quote from: Stevil on April 27, 2012, 12:31:33 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 26, 2012, 11:46:25 PM
Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?
Yes, that would be discrimination and I wouldn't want to be part of the community if that were the case.
If we discriminate, we create oppression, which creates conflict, which creates wars, this makes society unsafe and impacts me greatly.
Let's say USA people (in general) decide that they don't like hispanic people, therefore they don't hire them, and if they do, they give them menial jobs and treat them poorly.
Many hispanics would then revert to crime in order to survive, others may beg or live in squaller communities. This will cause much racial tension leading to many conflicts. This does not lead to stable and safe society.
Similar could be said if a majority Christian society decides not to employ non Christians.
If discrimination is acceptable, what is to say that my society won't turn against me and decide I am to be discriminated against?
Discrimination is dangerous, as a society we need to have an inclusive view to members of our society if we want to be safe.
Obviously when discrimination is limited to religious organisations then there are many non religious jobs that those discriminated people can go for instead. But I don't like "special" groups, as a society, one rule fits all ought to be in place. When religious outfits are providing schools, hospitals etc then this reduces the opportunities for the discriminated against people and hence reduces their lifestyles (financially and career wise).
Maybe if the government must for some reason give religious organisations discrimination exemptions it should be limited to core church activities e.g. church sermons/service etc. Churches running schools or charities or hospitals most certainly should play by the rules of society.
It is interesting though, give a religious organisation some rope and they will choose to misbehave. I wonder if these behaviours turn modern day people away from religious organisations?
While I appreciate your overall view and would agree, respectfully I would have to disagree where private organizations is concerned and while I don't know Whitney's thoughts on a Christian moderator, it would
seem to be counter-productive to this forum (it might work, but it could be cause for differing of opinions for things THIS FORUM should be united on). So it is with religious organizations that actively seek 501(c)(3) exemptions. There is criteria to fit within for that status so it's not simply just handed out to anyone wanting it. Any person can join, partake of, fellowship with...but when it comes to leading, working with, there might be good reason to be exclusive to some degree.
This is the Happy ATHEIST Forum...not the Happy Atheist Forum which loves Christians. I think such a place would not have the Atheist Image Dump II (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7397.0) thread such as it is, for example...if you know what I mean.
BTW, I know technically it "is" discrimination, but I meant whether it is a place FOR discrimination in the best sense.
I think JoeActor is a theist and he is a moderator here.
We aren't a hate group. We don't hate Christians or Christianity.
I am sure that a Christian Moderator could perform duties of keeping threads on topic and keeping people civil and blocking trolls and spam, as well as stopping people being overtly preachy.
Quote from: Stevil on April 27, 2012, 07:10:36 PM
I think JoeActor is a theist and he is a moderator here.
If JoeActor turned a new leaf and started taking offense to the postings in the image thread that speak ill of Theists and Christians and started to "moderate" them...is it within Whitney's rights to remove him as moderator? I think Tank would jump at him first...but would Whitney be within her rights to do so being the owner of HAF and because it is a private entity where not only is it legal to do so, but logical?
Quote from: StevilWe aren't a hate group. We don't hate Christians or Christianity.
As a whole, no. However you've not stood in my shoes here and have felt what I've felt a few times. Some of what is posted does hurt and it is offensive. But I'm in "your" domain and must live here according to the dictates of this world, so to speak. Even so, I still like it here as the moderation has been fair for the most part and most of the people are good people.
Quote from: StevilI am sure that a Christian Moderator could perform duties of keeping threads on topic and keeping people civil and blocking trolls and spam, as well as stopping people being overtly preachy.
I think so too, but what if this moderator, knowing the rules he/she has to work under does something that is outside of those rules and stays outside? Any Christian taking up moderation duties on an Atheist Forum obviously knows he/she has to restrain certain ideas and allow others he/she might not normally restrain or allow.
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree. However I think you made my point. You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:39:35 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree. However I think you made my point. You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.
Yes, the guidelines of the forum that said "no graphic nudity" and "no spam", not "no dissenting opinions."
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:39:35 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree. However I think you made my point. You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.
Yes, the guidelines of the forum that said "no graphic nudity" and "no spam", not "no dissenting opinions."
I'm simply saying there is good reason to be discriminatory in certain situation and apparenly IVF goes against Catholic guidelines. It's the reason these laws exist, I think. I'm sympathetic to this woman, however under law, apparently, it is within the rights of the school to let her go.
Do I agree that for IVF she's let go? No, but nor do I agree with forcing a privately funded employer to employ a person that does not abide by their guidelines.
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what
is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
Within the context of the forum, something like a picture of a woman bare breasted and breastfeeding would not have been graphic nudity and would have been allowed, but something that was meant to be sexual would not have been.
The rules to this forum are:
Civility
Right to Privacy
Guidelines are
NO JUNK POSTS
NO RACISM
NO PREACHING
NO SPAM
NO PLAGIARISM
WORK FRIENDLY
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
NO SOCK PUPPETS
In particular the No Preaching benefits from elaboration here
"While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence."
These don't give advantage to atheists.
The mere name of this forum and the mission statement means that most members will be atheists and a lot of conversation will be about disbelief with regards to religions and religious influence and behaviors within our societies. There is nothing to stop you having a Christian conversation as long as it is not preachy, i.e. not simply quoting scripture, making baseless assertions and trying to evangalise.
With regards to the image thread, have you discussed the offensive ones with the moderators?
Can you let me know which one or two you find the most offensive there?
What would be an equivalent offensive at atheism image?
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
There are laws, and those can be used to convict the owner of forums.
Quote from: Stevil on April 27, 2012, 09:39:37 PM
The rules to this forum are:
Civility
Right to Privacy
Guidelines are
NO JUNK POSTS
NO RACISM
NO PREACHING
NO SPAM
NO PLAGIARISM
WORK FRIENDLY
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
NO SOCK PUPPETS
In particular the No Preaching benefits from elaboration here
"While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence."
These don't give advantage to atheists.
The mere name of this forum and the mission statement means that most members will be atheists and a lot of conversation will be about disbelief with regards to religions and religious influence and behaviors within our societies. There is nothing to stop you having a Christian conversation as long as it is not preachy, i.e. not simply quoting scripture, making baseless assertions and trying to evangalise.
So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum or specifically more on topic, the entity they work for?
No, it doesn't necessarily give the advantage to the atheist. However, IMHExperience, it does give the atheist more room to make certain statements that others, because they more agree than disagree, do nothing about. (I won't go into detail, it's just the norm here as I interpret it and something I'm apparently willing to endure.)
Quote from: StevilWith regards to the image thread, have you discussed the offensive ones with the moderators?
Can you let me know which one or two you find the most offensive there?
What would be an equivalent offensive at atheism image?
It wouldn't make any difference to you since you don't hold anything "sacred". However as I've mentioned at least once, there is at least one image that while seriously offensive, I was able to find the humor, so maybe I'm a hypocrite.
I don't know of any specific image that would be specifically offensive to atheism. Do you? I'm sure many of the forum members would find it offensive if after each post, I would write something to the effect,
"I'm praying for you, Stevil." See the We're praying for you! (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9797.0) thread.
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
Within the context of the forum, something like a picture of a woman bare breasted and breastfeeding would not have been graphic nudity and would have been allowed, but something that was meant to be sexual would not have been.
Spoilsport.
There are rude and not entirely fair things that are said about theists here, but I don't think the vast majority of it is anything that's over the top. You have to keep in mind that a lot of us come from a background where atheists have been treated unfairly on a regular basis (not all of us, but some of us) and this is a "safe place" for those people. Also keep in mind that some of us are ex-theists who have very personal and often complicated feelings about religion. It's a highly emotional thing, you can't expect us to be above a little unfair expression from time to time when we know the vast majority of the people here are mostly sympathetic to us.
It's like when I meet up with other Newfoundlanders: we might make a couple of snide comments or jokes about "mainlanders" here or there, but do we actually believe most of it? No, not really. It's just nice to have common ground when you might otherwise feel like a minority.
AD, maybe you need a "theist in HAF" thread. :)
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
It looks as if there is a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
It looks as if there is a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.
There's a niche that needs filling.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 27, 2012, 11:43:12 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 27, 2012, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 27, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals." There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive. However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.
I disagree. I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.) As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities. The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.) And that's why I was a good mod. It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.
What's wrong with graphic nudity? In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
It looks as if there is a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.
There's a niche that needs filling.
Nice.
;)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 27, 2012, 11:39:46 PM
There are rude and not entirely fair things that are said about theists here, but I don't think the vast majority of it is anything that's over the top.
If it is rude and unfair, by definition it is over the top. But again, because you all agree more than you disagree, hurting another person is ok if that person happens to believe delusionally in God.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietYou have to keep in mind that a lot of us come from a background where atheists have been treated unfairly on a regular basis (not all of us, but some of us) and this is a "safe place" for those people. Also keep in mind that some of us are ex-theists who have very personal and often complicated feelings about religion. It's a highly emotional thing, you can't expect us to be above a little unfair expression from time to time when we know the vast majority of the people here are mostly sympathetic to us.
Exactly my point. For me to express myself in a manner in which is "rude or unfair" leads to a ban. For *you it gets chuckles and accolades and/or kudos.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietIt's like when I meet up with other Newfoundlanders: we might make a couple of snide comments or jokes about "mainlanders" here or there, but do we actually believe most of it? No, not really. It's just nice to have common ground when you might otherwise feel like a minority.
In that context it would seem more of a poke at in fun and not to demean or degrade one because of their delusional beliefs.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietAD, maybe you need a "theist in HAF" thread. :)
I'm unsure how that conversation might go.
More on topic, then there is a time and place for discrimination. On one end, minor offenses and on the other blatent racial or sexist. I think it's more healthy for the company or private entity to hold those people that keep more in line with the guidelines of the entity and weed out those that may cause problems or go against the guidelines.
It seems logical to me.
I disagree about "rude" = "over the top", but everyone has their own limits, I guess. It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.
Quote from: Stevil on April 27, 2012, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.
There are laws, and those can be used to convict the owner of forums.
I was thinking that forum rules are subservient to legal requirements in all cases anyway.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 28, 2012, 12:37:01 AM
It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.
Yes. I've often thought that, without a word, the simple truth that I am an atheist is sort of a slap in the face to theists. The inescapable fact is that I do not believe in something that you hold to be not only true, but the defining truth of your existence. Any word or image that I ever post about theists is only icing on the cake after that. This is a forum that has a group identity based around not believing in the one thing you hold most dear. The idea that our little jokes in the image forum are what
really rubs you the wrong way seems strange.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 10:32:59 PM
So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum
No discrimination, the rules applies to all and is not biased towards atheists.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 10:32:59 PM
No, it doesn't necessarily give the advantage to the atheist. However, IMHExperience, it does give the atheist more room to make certain statements that others, because they more agree than disagree, do nothing about. (I won't go into detail, it's just the norm here as I interpret it and something I'm apparently willing to endure.)
I understand what you are saying. I have seem you moderated for things that others would not be moderated for. I am not entirely convinced that it is an atheist vs theist thing though. Sometimes you do rub people the wrong way, and I feel at least one moderater is lacking tolerance when it comes to some of your posts.
In saying that though, I also feel some moderators are worried that certain theist comments will cause a raucous as people will heavily disagree. So I think sometimes there is a fine line between judging something as being a troll type post or a genuine conversation post.
Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism
Quote from: Stevil on April 28, 2012, 09:29:02 PM
Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism
I agree with you there.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 28, 2012, 09:38:17 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 28, 2012, 09:29:02 PM
Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism
I agree with you there.
I never know what to say in response, so i usually dont say anything. :<
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 28, 2012, 12:37:01 AM
I disagree about "rude" = "over the top", but everyone has their own limits, I guess. It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.
No, no, no. I have no issue at all with the discourse here. The issue (well not THE issue, I really have no THE issue, it's just a point I believe to have) is that I feel a Christian has less "freedom", if you will, here...in that what may go off as funny and given virtual high-fives, if the same came from the opposite side, is seen as an attack or insensitive and the forum rules are followed to the letter. There are instances of posts I've read that I KNOW if it had been me or a Christian posting those words, IN THE LEAST it would get a light warning if not a red-pen-post. (remember your grade school teachers and their red pens?)
About
rude=over the top. If anything stops your thinking and you think, "Well that was a bit rude..." it is something over the top of what you expected. You're right though, everyone has their limits and opinion on what is or isn't rude. To me personally, a lot of what is accepted as "not rude, just fact" on HAF is rude, and for the most part I don't say anything as it is not my place to have issue with the status quo. However when a person asks or mentions that it is unfair of religious organizations (which not all 501(c)(3) "companies" are religious but are under the same law) to "discriminate", I simply find good reason for it and try as best I know how to defend what society has deemed fair and logical.
I don't really disagree with you on anything you've said regarding the OP.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 05:05:48 PM
About rude=over the top. If anything stops your thinking and you think, "Well that was a bit rude..." it is something over the top of what you expected.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I feel that those things should be censored or reprimanded. In the past, if someone has made a comment that I didn't like or I felt was unfair (about women, newfies, atheists, etc.) I either addressed their comment directly or ignored it, depending on how much it annoyed me. If you have an issue with the way that one or two moderators carry on, that's a different issue, I think. If there are particular posts that you don't like or you don't feel are civil, you should report them. That way, if you feel that your concerns are being systematically ignored, you at least have something to point to and say "my concerns were ignored here, here, here and here." Instead of a vague complaint of "you guys say things that aren't nice sometimes and I don't think the moderators are out to help me," which seems to keep resurfacing.
I'm not saying that you are wrong in your feelings, but I don't see how that kind of feedback is helpful besides annoying the community/moderation team further. You say you "don't say anything about it", but there have been numerous times now that you've seemed to have this complaint.
Quote from: Ali on April 28, 2012, 06:11:23 PM
Yes. I've often thought that, without a word, the simple truth that I am an atheist is sort of a slap in the face to theists.
To some Christians, maybe. To theists?...I'm not certain. I don't feel slapped in the face until your* actions and/or words speak about how you really feel about me. Crazy, deluded and less intelligent.
Quote from: AliThe inescapable fact is that I do not believe in something that you hold to be not only true, but the defining truth of your existence. Any word or image that I ever post about theists is only icing on the cake after that. This is a forum that has a group identity based around not believing in the one thing you hold most dear. The idea that our little jokes in the image forum are what really rubs you the wrong way seems strange.
In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying, but we (or me) are getting off topic.
Quote from: Stevil on April 28, 2012, 09:29:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 27, 2012, 10:32:59 PM
So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum
No discrimination, the rules applies to all and is not biased towards atheists.
Likewise in my thinking, there is no "discrimination" going on when a private entity removes an employee that is not following the rules and within the law here this employee does not fit in with what the CC sees as acceptable behavior. Both of us disagree, but just because we disagree with the specifics, doesn't mean I disagree with the law itself providing the CC to uphold their beliefs.
Quote from: StevilPersonally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism
Nothing cryptic. I like chatting it up with you all. Evangelize? Not really. If some have questions, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability. Cause a stir? I can't really help that as obviously I have some different ideas/beliefs. As long as this forum is public in that anyone can join and the moderators are not banning people simply for being Christian, there will be some stirring that will result.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 05:46:50 PM
In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying,
If it were bullying then the intent would be to hurt you or to hurt Christians.
Maybe that is your perception, that people are posting those images to hurt you.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not.
You haven't stated an image in particular, so I not sure which ones you would find offensive as opposed to which ones you would find funny.
I'm guessing, maybe the Jesus on the dog's bottom is offensive.
I would say with that one the intent is to show how silly it is when people state they have found Jesus on a piece of toast or in a cut fruit or in their tea leaves etc. Why silly? Because no-one knows what Jesus looks like. There is nothing to compare against, also because people tend to see what they want to see.
The dog's bottom is funny, because obviously Jesus would not choose to show his face represented by the anus of a K9, hence it is not Jesus, but it does, with a bit of imagination look like a person, in a gesture that Jesus is sometimes portrayed in.
So the message of the "joke" would be that this is not Jesus, but it looks like "Jesus", anything can look like Jesus if you want it to.
It is a message of disbelief, not a message of bullying Christians.
Of course, any excuse I can put up in regards to an image, doesn't change how you feel, that you feel offended, your feelings are real.
I don't think that we can live our lives not offending people. Indian's hold the cow to be a sacred animal, does that mean cow should be off the menu? Westerners hold dogs to be sacred (as pets) so should Koreans stop eating dog? Vegetarians hold all animals as sacred, so does that take all meat off the menu?
There is certainly a difference between being offensive vs being detrimental to someone's livelihood.
Taking children out of otherwise non discriminative schools and putting them into a Catholic school means that the gay teacher has less job opportunities, which means reduced income or no income. For a non Catholic teacher having problems making babies and choosing IVF it means they lose their job, their means of income.
Quote from: Stevil on April 30, 2012, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 05:46:50 PM
In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying,
If it were bullying then the intent would be to hurt you or to hurt Christians.
Hurt is not physical. It hurts emotionally and belittles the Christian intellectually.
Quote from: StevilMaybe that is your perception, that people are posting those images to hurt you.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not.
I recall a specific instance that I'm pretty sure it was indirectly, but directly meant for me. (if that makes any sense) Other than that, no, I don't think anyone is posting images or making statements directed at me.
Quote from: StevilYou haven't stated an image in particular, so I not sure which ones you would find offensive as opposed to which ones you would find funny.
I'm guessing, maybe the Jesus on the dog's bottom is offensive.
I would say with that one the intent is to show how silly it is when people state they have found Jesus on a piece of toast or in a cut fruit or in their tea leaves etc. Why silly? Because no-one knows what Jesus looks like. There is nothing to compare against, also because people tend to see what they want to see.
The dog's bottom is funny, because obviously Jesus would not choose to show his face represented by the anus of a K9, hence it is not Jesus, but it does, with a bit of imagination look like a person, in a gesture that Jesus is sometimes portrayed in.
So the message of the "joke" would be that this is not Jesus, but it looks like "Jesus", anything can look like Jesus if you want it to.
It is a message of disbelief, not a message of bullying Christians.
Of course, any excuse I can put up in regards to an image, doesn't change how you feel, that you feel offended, your feelings are real.
And I won't point to any specifically as for the most part they all bring a certain amount of 'pain'. I would ask you* to simply take a step back and try and experience it from the perspective of someone making fun of something you hold as sacred.
Quote from: StevilI don't think that we can live our lives not offending people. Indian's hold the cow to be a sacred animal, does that mean cow should be off the menu? Westerners hold dogs to be sacred (as pets) so should Koreans stop eating dog? Vegetarians hold all animals as sacred, so does that take all meat off the menu?
You're right. We are daily and at almost every moment offending someone in the things we do, say and think. However to do so knowing it is offensive just to gain a laugh, therein lies the difference. Eating cow offends some cultures. This doesn't give me the right to go and slowly chew on a burger in front of those people. I'm not saying you* are doing that, but to chew on the burger in an offensive manner is still offensive regardless of where it is done. I'm here (and everyone here) by choice so I cannot complain to change the rules, but I can give my perspective to MAYBE change the overall thinking of what is and isn't acceptable or just for giggles. Granted, my position is on a knife edge, but I cannot help what I feel.
Quote from: StevilThere is certainly a difference between being offensive vs being detrimental to someone's livelihood.
Taking children out of otherwise non discriminative schools and putting them into a Catholic school means that the gay teacher has less job opportunities, which means reduced income or no income. For a non Catholic teacher having problems making babies and choosing IVF it means they lose their job, their means of income.
I agree with you in that sense, however I support the laws that allow private companies or religious organizations that fall under this criteria as a 501(c)(3) for a less hard-edged view of "discrimination". Just because a person didn't know this, doesn't null the law and make it wrong or illogical.
Again we both agree.
I think you asked, if I remember correctly, is what gives these entities the right?...I say the law, which I uphold as logical and at this point, so does society in that the law stands. Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.
This post took me forever and I had difficulty conveing my thoughts.
AD, I don't think that because you hold certain matters sacred, that should inhibit anyone else from holding them up to ridicule. There is a tendency for some religious people to regard their beliefs as somehow protected and privileged, encouraged on occasion by anti- blasphemy laws. What is precious to you may be absurd and even pernicious to somebody else. You certainly have no cause for complaint of you sign up on a board which regards your beliefs as baseless and where it can hardly be astonishing if there are instances of literally irreverent humour.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 08:21:52 PM
Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.
There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.
Quote from: En_Route on April 30, 2012, 10:26:32 PM
AD, I don't think that because you hold certain matters sacred, that should inhibit anyone else from holding them up to ridicule. There is a tendency for some religious people to regard their beliefs as somehow protected and privileged, encouraged on occasion by anti- blasphemy laws. What is precious to you may be absurd and even pernicious to somebody else. You certainly have no cause for complaint of you sign up on a board which regards your beliefs as baseless and where it can hardly be astonishing if there are instances of literally irreverent humour.
Agreed. I'm here by my own choice. My point is simply that some measure of ridicule is allowed/given to the atheist but the same measure of the same is not given to the Christian. To ridicule is to mock. If the atheist mocks that which is sacred to the Christian, it is allowed here. (I get it) but if a Christian were to be insensitive to an atheist, the point is brought up immediately. My issue is that mocking, ridicule, and insensitivity is relative here depending one who is serving it up and who is receiving it. It's simply an observation that I've noticed (IMHO) with the time I've spent on HAF. If it is a Christian and/or the beliefs therein is the subject of ridicule, then it's quite fine (and should be in this context of the forum being an atheist haven...I'm not trying to change that). So then an aspect of my stance that a lady being fired from a Catholic institution going against their guidelines is totally within their legal right and LOGICALLY so. It may not be the best idea to do so (in the context of love and compassion) as she loses her job and livelihood with a child on the way, but she is not in forced labor but is an 'at-will' employee. Even public employers can pick and choose at their whims to employ or not employ a person and fire with no reason whatsoever. The problem comes to the public employer when it has to prove it wasn't for a reason not allowed for within the law (race, religion, gender...) The private employer has less hoops to jump through is all.
Stevil asked something to the effect, "What gives them the right..." I simply say it is right because we, society, agree there must be some sort of 'discrimination' in certain situations.
Quote from: Stevil on April 30, 2012, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 08:21:52 PM
Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.
There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.
Of course, I agree. Logically, is that the only job this woman can do? Jobs are scarce these days here in the U.S., but it is well within the rights of the CC to let her go as it is within the law.
Again, I agree it wasn't in the best interest of the CC to let her go as the wrong in doing so seems to me to far outweigh the "wrong" she's committed according to the CC or the 'hurt' the CC sees in keeping her as an employee.
Quote from: Stevil on April 30, 2012, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 08:21:52 PM
Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.
There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.
It comes down to once again some religious people feel the world is black/white, and if it doesnt fit into their world view, they can force "the abstraction" aside.
Some women have trouble reproducing. I see no issue with IVF.
Some people are gay or bisexual. Once again, how does this bother anyone?
The world cannot possibly survive on such views from the dark and ignorant ages.
When a volcano erupting meant your animal sacrifice didnt appease the gods. When a woman dying during birth was "normal" cuz we didnt have the doctors and technology to help her through labor.
When a woman couldnt leave her husband, because marriage is so "sacred", and a divorce was unheard of, even in the most savage conditions.
This is discrimination, plain and simple.
Sorry, but i want humanity to evolve.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 30, 2012, 10:53:22 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 30, 2012, 10:39:28 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 08:21:52 PM
Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.
There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.
It comes down to once again some religious people feel the world is black/white, and if it doesnt fit into their world view, they can force "the abstraction" aside.
Some women have trouble reproducing. I see no issue with IVF.
Some people are gay or bisexual. Once again, how does this bother anyone?
The world cannot possibly survive on such views from the dark and ignorant ages.
When a volcano erupting meant your animal sacrifice didnt appease the gods. When a woman dying during birth was "normal" cuz we didnt have the doctors and technology to help her through labor.
When a woman couldnt leave her husband, because marriage is so "sacred", and a divorce was unheard of, even in the most savage conditions.
This is discrimination, plain and simple.
Sorry, but i want humanity to evolve.
So you're saying a private agency that falls within the 501(c)(3) laws has no right to exercise their rights as given under law? Laws are not placed into practice by only Christians. The people making laws are put into place by the people of the nation as a whole. If you disagree, you have every right to work for change, but for the moment, it is well within the law to do so and logical.
The laws concerning 501(c)(3) non-profit agencies has not been around since the dark and ignorant ages.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 10:44:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 30, 2012, 10:26:32 PM
AD, I don't think that because you hold certain matters sacred, that should inhibit anyone else from holding them up to ridicule. There is a tendency for some religious people to regard their beliefs as somehow protected and privileged, encouraged on occasion by anti- blasphemy laws. What is precious to you may be absurd and even pernicious to somebody else. You certainly have no cause for complaint of you sign up on a board which regards your beliefs as baseless and where it can hardly be astonishing if there are instances of literally irreverent humour.
Agreed. I'm here by my own choice. My point is simply that some measure of ridicule is allowed/given to the atheist but the same measure of the same is not given to the Christian. To ridicule is to mock. If the atheist mocks that which is sacred to the Christian, it is allowed here. (I get it) but if a Christian were to be insensitive to an atheist, the point is brought up immediately. My issue is that mocking, ridicule, and insensitivity is relative here depending one who is serving it up and who is receiving it. It's simply an observation that I've noticed (IMHO) with the time I've spent on HAF. If it is a Christian and/or the beliefs therein is the subject of ridicule, then it's quite fine (and should be in this context of the forum being an atheist haven...I'm not trying to change that). So then an aspect of my stance that a lady being fired from a Catholic institution going against their guidelines is totally within their legal right and LOGICALLY so. It may not be the best idea to do so (in the context of love and compassion) as she loses her job and livelihood with a child on the way, but she is not in forced labor but is an 'at-will' employee. Even public employers can pick and choose at their whims to employ or not employ a person and fire with no reason whatsoever. The problem comes to the public employer when it has to prove it wasn't for a reason not allowed for within the law (race, religion, gender...) The private employer has less hoops to jump through is all.
Stevil asked something to the effect, "What gives them the right..." I simply say it is right because we, society, agree there must be some sort of 'discrimination' in certain situations.
I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions. I also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option
that is not inherently objectionable.
Quote from: En_Route on April 30, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions.
The human in me wants to, but the human in me also accepts that atheism is a logical stance. I don't necessarily have anything to ridicule the atheist about. Most of the reason is that there really isn't anything an atheist holds sacred other than their own family and I would never ridicule someone's loved ones for the sake of a laugh.
Quote from: En_RouteI also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option that is not inherently objectionable.
I used to be on a private school board a few years back when my kids attended. One of the documents a new teacher/employee signs is that they agree to uphold the beliefs of the school...yada, yada...and understand that going against any one of these is grounds for removal. I'm almost positive this Catholic school had something of the same. I don't know of any teachers that were not of the SDA religion, however I don't think it would be totally impossible if the teacher were able to separate their disbelief from their job at an SDA school. It never came up that I know of so I'm speculating. I can see hiring almost anyone except a religion teacher as that seems would logically be kept exclusively for a practising and believing SDA. As a parent, I sent my kids to that school for expressly that purpose...among being a good school at the time.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 30, 2012, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 30, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions.
The human in me wants to, but the human in me also accepts that atheism is a logical stance. I don't necessarily have anything to ridicule the atheist about. Most of the reason is that there really isn't anything an atheist holds sacred other than their own family and I would never ridicule someone's loved ones for the sake of a laugh.
Quote from: En_RouteI also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option that is not inherently objectionable.
I used to be on a private school board a few years back when my kids attended. One of the documents a new teacher/employee signs is that they agree to uphold the beliefs of the school...yada, yada...and understand that going against any one of these is grounds for removal. I'm almost positive this Catholic school had something of the same. I don't know of any teachers that were not of the SDA religion, however I don't think it would be totally impossible if the teacher were able to separate their disbelief from their job at an SDA school. It never came up that I know of so I'm speculating. I can see hiring almost anyone except a religion teacher as that seems would logically be kept exclusively for a practising and believing SDA. As a parent, I sent my kids to that school for expressly that purpose...among being a good school at the time.
Religion seems to seep into a lot of extra- curricular activities certainly in Catholic schools I have encountered;
All part of the "pervasive ethos" of such august establishments.
I'm curious to see what Ecurb could add to this, being a lawyer. The problem lies in the contract and if she signed it, then she is also personally responsible for getting fired? How does that work?
I guess we can discuss the ethos behind it all we want, but if it's in the contract it's there. How could that be changed?