Is there some principled difference between racially discriminatory

[dsc]

religious doctrines and ones that are anti gay? The argument is made that churches shouldn't have to obey gay civil rights laws due to their religious objections. But there are churchs that have racially discriminative doctrines. Why do they have to obey racial civil rights laws if other churches can avoid obeying ones about sexual orientation? Am I missing some huge prinicple here?

[dsc]

1. kick

[corporatewhore]

2. I dont understand that one myself i also dont understand why people

can rationalize politicians having anti gay policies but not racist ones
SAME FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

[ulysses]

3. kick

[eaprez]

4. What Does "KICK" mean?

Being rather new I'd appreciate it if someone could fill me in. Thanks!

[ulysses]

5. kicking a post brings it back to the top of the forum. n/t

("n/t" means "no text", and is thus misapplied in this case. :) )

[corporatewhore]

6. welcome to du

:hi:

[eaprez]

7. Thank you....

...glad to be amongst like minds :)

[Padraig18]

8. Yes, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[oldcoot]

9. What they would argue

Many opponents of gay marriage would argue that homosexuality (even though there are several scientific studies that say otherwise) is a choice and that race is not a choice. Since many churches view homosexuality as a sin, they should not be forced to obey civil rights laws that protect gays and lesbians. This argument falls flat, however, when you consider the fact that churches are allowed to discriminate against women. For example, they can refuse to hire women as ministers or priests.

Another issue is whether or not a supporter of gay marriages is electable. Some Democrats are probably concerned that supporting gay rights might hurt our chances in the presidential election. As a result, they suggest taking a "me too" approach in rejecting gay marriages or simply ignoring the issue. However, I would remind those individuals why they became Democrats in the first place. Did they become Democrats because they were concern about protecting the rights of rich, white heterosexual males or did they join the party because they were concerned about the rights of the "little person?"

[maxr4clark]

15. I didn't understand the logic behind your example

of women as ministers or priests. It seems to me that a religion is free to restrict their hiring to members of their religion, and that therefore they can choose whether women are eligible for a post as a minister or a priest by saying that a woman who wants such a post is by definition not a member of their religion. The woman in question is free to choose another religion, so this isn't an abridgement of her rights--at least not as far as the government is concerned. The woman can of course advocate for the religion to change its doctrine, but that is another matter entirely, and doesn't involve the government.

By the way, I attend a church that has a woman as the pastor, and I am very glad my church's doctrine doesn't discriminate against women in that way. But a presidential candidate should represent the government's responsibilities in such a matter, not his own personal religious beliefs.

[oldcoot]

17. The context of my argument

I think that the original poster wanted to know what the difference was between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He or she wanted to know why churches are forced to follow racial civil rights laws but it is okay for churches to ignore gay civil rights laws. I suggested that those individuals who supported religious discrimination would argue that homosexuality is a choice and race is not a choice.

I was pointing out the weakness in this argument by pointing out how the various ways that some churches discriminate against women. If these people honestly believe that gays and lesbians deserve to have the churches discriminate against them because they made a conscious choice to be "that way" then how do they justify discrimination against women? I used the ordaining of ministers as an example of how some churches discriminate against women.

I was not saying that the federal government should force churches to do anything. If churches want to discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation they should be allowed, as long as the American TAXPAYER is not required to subsidize them. I hope that clears things up for you.

[maxr4clark]

18. No, still murky here

I wouldn't keep asking, but the issue is important to me, and I don't want to miss your point. Sorry for the trouble.

Your first paragraph identifies a group of people (let's call them "They" for clarity) who support religious discrimination against GLBT because it is a choice .

Your claim in the second paragraph that Their argument is weak, because gender is not a choice and yet religions discriminate based on gender. What I don't get is why you think this says anything at all about Their belief that it is okay to discriminate against GLBT due to questions of morality. Your argument is apparently that They should be consistent and either think that religious discrimination on the basis of race should be okay too, or that religious discrimination on the basis of gender should not be okay, as with race, because neither of those is a choice.

In order to say their argument is weak, I was expecting you to argue either that They shouldn't discriminate based on morality, or that GLBT is not a choice.

Third paragraph:

You say you were talking about discrimination within a church, not discrimination with respect to society as a whole. But I'm sure the original poster's question was about discrimination in society, where the law is what is important, because that is the issue in front of the candidates.

My argument, in a post below, is that it is wrong to define the law by your own morality; in a democracy, every reasonable person's belief system should be equally respected, and so on. So I see the question of whether you're talking about the actions of a church, where everyone can be required to have the same world view, or you're talking about the actions of the larger society, as a central part of the answer to the question.

[arewethereyet]

10. you got me curious

which churches are doctrinally discriminatory ?

seriously, I am not aware of any. just stupid apparantly.

[dsc]

12. Bob Jones University is from some church

though not sure which one.

[arewethereyet]

13. yeah but its a Christian university, not a church

any others ?

[dsc]

14. It is supported by some church

and that church bans interracial dating. Again not sure which one but it claims to have doctrinal reason for doing so.

[arewethereyet]

16. ok, thanks

I thought I had missed something significant but if it's just BJ U thats another matter.

[maxr4clark]

11. No. I think on the surface, the difference is that

a person's "race" is something they acquire by the accident of their birth, while opinions vary as to how someone becomes gay. Being gay is also neither favored by most of the established religions, nor by natural selection. I think the questions of whether being gay is a choice, and whether being gay is immoral, are the questions that make it different from "race" or gender.

Personally I think these questions are beside the point, and that the government should not legislate on questions of morality per se. Thus, whether bisexuality is moral or not is a personal decision, and people should decide for themselves whether it is something they should pursue.

But our government has a long history of legislation preventing one person from being subject to another person's morality: conscientious objection, for instance, and freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. All of these are examples of treating each citizen as if their personal beliefs deserve equal respect--so long as they don't involve actively trying to destroy the public peace. Suicide disrupts the public peace, and is unlawful. Believing that you are God and therefore have the right to choose to kill someone destroys the public peace, and therefore is unlawful. I don't see that being openly gay or living in a gay marriage disrupts the public peace in any way, so I don't see why it should be unlawful. Denying someone civil rights on the basis of their personal beliefs, however, clearly disrupts the public peace, and should be unlawful.

A religious fundamentalist, whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish or otherwise, does not accept the view that there is more than one view of the world that deserves to be respected; that is the essence of fundamentalism. Thus, they have no problem with legislating morality--so long as it is their morality. Religious fundamentalism is contrary to the liberal philosophy that underlies our democracy (Rawls and others have called it "pluralism", I believe), as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the amendments to the Constitution. It can therefore be said to be un-American, in the most meaningful sense of the word.