I don't know how it works in the US, but over here the criteria for picking candidates for a job have to be relevent to the candidates ability to perform the job. You can't say 'no non-christians' without first proving why non-christians would be unable to perform the duties. In the case of priests, vicars, bishops, and probably even sunday-school teachers it is reasonable to assume that 'being christian' is a valid criteria for the job.
Exactly my point.
For any other job it's not.
Which is why I ask Omni to identify what exactly a "Religious Institution Employer" constitutes.
quote:
How well would it work for a Christian to join the Secular Humanists for America?
You seem to have gone off on a tangent here. In the quote above we were talking about employer/employee relationships. Now we seem to be talking about membership to a private club; a completely different matter.
If you won't introduce Secular Humanists, then just substitute it for any secular company, like the ACLU, who would rather die before they hired a known Christian zealot.
I see no problem with a church denying someone membership of their 'club' if the person doesn't meet the criteria. Employment isn't membership within a club though, it is goverened by legal rules (at least here in the UK, I have no idea about the US).
Its not about a 'club' its about what is going to work best. Can you be a youth pastor and atheist at the same time? It doesn't really work out too well for any one. Likewise, could a conservative Christian work for the ACLU when all of ACLU cases are diametrically opposite to Judeo-Christian morals? What I'm trying to say is that its not discrimination, its common sense.
If however you actually meant something along the lines of 'How well would it work for a Christian to seek employment by the Secular Humanists for America?' then my position would be consistent with above.
Right, I'm not talking about very specific employment that is specifically geared to either something religious or explicitly secular in nature where hired someone of the exact opposite beliefs simply wouldn't find cohesion for many reasons.
If 'being a Christian' has no bearing on the candidates ability to perform the role being applied for then christians should not be discriminated against. I'd stand up for a christians right to equal employment opportunities as much as a non-christians.
If Omni was referring to, say, a CEO of a company who in his personal life is an avowed Christian, hears of someone in his company that is a staunch atheist and fires them over it, yes, that is 100% discrimination. The difference is that the company is not religious in nature and therefore bears no reflection towards it. So firing someone over their personal beliefs is some sort of vendetta for disagreeing with their lifestyle. But, if a Christian applied for a job at the ACLU, it just wouldn't work out because its identifiably atheist. Likewise, if an atheist wanted to apply as youth pastor, his/her message would conflict with everything that church supports. That isn't discrimination, that's using your brain.
That article really doesn't make the situatin clear. Basically the universtiy has declared that the course "Christianity's Influence on American History" does not meet the requirements to gain admittance to the University. The article does not explain why it fails to meet the criteria. Does the course teach bogus history? Does the course lack educational content? What skills does the course teach its students? I imagine if the students sit and listen to someone without putting in any input of their own then they aren't learning any skills at all that would help with a degree course. All of these are valid reasons to reject a course (any course).
Its not ambiguous at all, as the plaintiff alleges that religious content, like "Intro to Buddhism" and "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" were allowed. That's enough to at least raise a few eyebrows.
"I think the university has the right to require entering students to have a foundation on the subjects the university thinks help provide a preparation for higher education," he said "But I think the schools have a point when they say other courses from other institutions are allowed in, but when a course has 'Christian' in the title, it seems to raise a red flag." -Charles Haynes
When talking about a biology course that was rejected it quoted the blurb from the front of the textbook used:
If conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.
Obviously it is clear that this course is unsuitable for people who want to enter a place of learning.
I agree. That's the worst disclaimer I've ever heard. Let the students decide if its a crock or not.
I tend to dislike all art, especially modern art. I'll stay out of the art-appreciation debate!
Well, I like art. And I'd like to think I have a broad range of appreciation. However, the term "art" is so loose these days that someone has tried to pass off defecation with a French flag stuck in the middle as art. A fetus placed in a formaldehyde-filled jar and a crucifix placed in a urine-filled jar is somehow considered art.
Furthermore, why on earth should the federal government, whose job is very defined in the Constitution, subsidizing an art program???
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2
