Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

From recent news in England. full story at:
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Churches unite over adoption rowFirstly:
I find it abhorrent that the churches would use blackmail in this way, threatening to close their adoption services. Thereby stateing it's preference for children to be shunted from foster home to foster home indefinitely rather than exahaust every possibility to house these children in a loving, stable home.
How very christian.Secondly:
What else in the law can be excused by the teachings of the bible?One example comes straight to mind:
Leviticus 25:44-46 seems to support slavery

quote:

---

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

---

So can the churches in england now unite to demand the right to slaves due to their religious teachings?Edited by Creavolution, : spelling

Do you see this as a social issues topic or did you have another forum in mind?TTFN,AW

I guess that sounds about right, although there is an element of biblical inerrancy there.whatever you think.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't think the lawmakers should budge. If a religious institution chooses not to operate because it cannot do so in compliance with the law then too bad for it. If those agencies close then if there really is a demand, other agencies will open to fill the void; ones that are willing to follow the law.

I for one think the churches are going too far. I have never had a problem with the churches teaching against homosexuals and all that crap. After all, it is their churches and their right to spread hate. But involving innocent children who can't fend for themselves... I think the churches are getting too selfish.

I think that I agree with you, which is itself a wee bit miraculous! I think that the issue is the environment that the child was raised in. A homosexual couple who displayed outward physical signs of affection may well be arguably slanting the kids societal development...so says one argument. (I have no proof,statistically, though)I suppose that it could be argued that a heterosexual couple who showed abnormal behaviors would be just as harmful to the child, however.Lets say that the issue was adoption by single people. Sexual preference would not be an issue. Behavior and role modeling would be the issues. Stable home environment, ability to understand and be responsible for the child, etc etc.I am not sure that I favor forcing the churches to adopt a standard unlike their creeds, but perhaps if they are too rigid they should not be in the public child adoption business.

The churches second that notion Their charity is not charitable enough for some. I for one think it is a shame to force anyone into doing something which is offensive to their conscience. I say if you want seperation of church and state, be honest about it. There is no requirements of belief for public office; don't force public creeds on private institutions.

Never mind. I didn't really mean what I said. There, again we have a disagreement

Anastasia, no offense but again you've shown that you know nothing about the term "seperation of church and state".

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

Well given that in the UK the head of the state is also the head of the Church of England, i.e. the Queen, this argument seems pretty irrelevant.That aside, if the church is offering a public service also offered by the state and not of a strictly religious nature and their operation of that service is seen as compromising the welfare of the children they are looking after then doesn't the state have a responsibility to ensure the best welfare for the child that they can. Exactly what represents the best welfare may be debatable but once the government has made a decision on it they have an onus to ensure it is upheld.TTFN,WK

I want it.Actually, in most states there are requirements of belief for public office, generally those pertaining to upholding the law of the land. An institution that cannot accept the laws that apply to a specific area of activity should not undertake that activity.I say don't force private creeds (most especially hateful ones) on children. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I for one think it is despicable that one section of any community should find dicrimination based upon sexual preference acceptable, and expect to be allowed to practice it.I'm interested to hear your (and others) views on the slavery analogy.The bible states that Slavery is acceptable.
should churches then be allowed to practice slavery as a matter of 'concience'?

So.. If I start a 'church' with a 'creed' that preaches child abuse. Should I be allowed preach/practise this?extreme example I know, but makes the point nonetheless.

quote:

---

extreme example I know, but makes the point nonetheless.

---

Providing an extreme analogy is a standard method of investigating legal and moral claims.For example:

quote:

---

If I start a 'church' with a 'creed' that preaches child abuse. Should I be allowed preach/practise this?

---

If the "creed" is sincerely held and held by a large number of people, then why should anyone outside that particular community be allowed to prevent this?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)