Why should the church be exempt?

IMO, no. Perhaps it was the way I was brought up.

Edit: perhaps I should elaborate. Being a parent, I can never see any justification for abusing children. However, if my upbringing was different, say I was abused as a child and thought this was normal, I might feel differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it remains harmful then no, it would not be acceptable. I can't envisage it not being harmful so I see no situation under which it would be acceptable. Can you?
 
There are cultures where paedophilia is acceptable, at least in a limited way. There is at least one tribe somewhere where when a girl has her first period she has a coming of age party which culminates in the male elder of the tribe taking her virginity. I'll try and find more details to back this up but it was on a BBC documentary a while back.

Also, there are a fair number of western (even European) countries where the age of consent is 13. Is an adult from one of those countries who has sex with a 13yr old kid a paedophile? By who's definition?

Wolfgang - comparing paedophilia to homosexuality as you did was IMO, a bit crass. AFAIK paedophilia (lets define it as people who seek out sex with pre pubescent children) is a form of mental disorder that can usually be traced back to one form or another of abuse during childhood. Homosexuality OTOH is something one is born with and it's not the result of any childhood "environmental" factors.

I know I've just opened up the nature vs. nurture debate but it's now pretty clear that homosexuality is a case of nature and not nurture. The paradox of "if there's a gay gene then how did it survive so long" had some light thrown on it by recent research showing that women with close gay relatives are more fertile, suggesting that something about the gay gene (or genes) is beneficial to the survival of the human race (in Darwinian terms). I don't think anyone's ever so much as suggested that there might be a paedophilia gene or a necrophilia gene or any other "insert sexual perversion here" gene.

technobear said:
Slowly but surely, the more advanced populations of this planet are waking up to the fact that the churches of the world are a sham and religion itself is a sham. One day we will free ourselves from its shackles completely.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more allthough I'd say "organized religion" rather than religion. As Julian said, personal spirituality not tied to any organized religion is quite a different matter.

Michael.
 
wolfgang said:
Peadophils have been present in large numbers in every population on etc...
Click to expand...
Your statement is wrong because it is (thankfully) untrue. Paedophiles have existed in small numbers.

You are also on shaky ground because while 'homosexuality' is well defined, 'paedophilia' is not. It depends on the definition of 'child' and that varies widely around the world. Some societies define puberty to be the onset of adulthood without reference to a specific age. Some societies have no concept of an age of consent. About the only thing we do all agree on is that non-consensual sexual activity is wrong - but then we have a different word for that. It's called rape and age is irrelevant in the definition of rape. Where consensual sexual activity is concerned, the definition of what is and is not paedophilia varies widely dependent of the standards and prejudices of each society (and any religions they may adhere to).

julian2002 said:
to me a religion offers a 'manual' if you like for living your life. the problem is that these manuals were written thousands of years ago and much of what they espouse is totally irrelevant to the modern world...
Click to expand...
And much of what they contain embodies the popular prejudices of the men who wrote them.
 
Nice to see that this debate has so far remained intelligent and reasoned...

However, I will rephrase the original question. Why does employment law and social responsibility not apply to the church?
 
I'm not sure that the Church of England is an 'employer' in the usual sense. I've tried having a dig around the C of E website and found this:

Although not the employers of the clergy, the Church Commissioners are responsible for paying a stipend to most clergy, deaconesses and licensed layworkers in parochial or diocesan appointments, and for making deductions for income tax, National Insurance, etc. We also make pension payments on behalf of the Church of England Pensions Board. These pages are designed to answer many of the questions which arise from day to day.
Click to expand...

So who does employ the clergy? And to what extent do all the usual employment laws we know and love apply to clergy?
 
Here is an interesting link:

http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/gb/apr2004/rb review/7_clergy.html

and a quote from it:

7.8 Employment Status of Clergy

7.8.1 In employment law clergy are currently classed as 'office holders', not 'employees'. However the Department for Trade and Industry is currently reviewing the employment status of "office holders", including clergy, with the intention (it is understood) that as much of the workforce as possible should be brought under the protection of UK and European employment law. The Group is aware that this has prompted a major review of all aspects of clergy Terms of Service in the Church of England. The Group recognises the importance of this issue for the Church in Wales (in particular the balance between the "employment rights" and "employment responsibilities" of clergy). Whilst recognising that a major shift in the way in which the law recognises clergy would be a significant cultural change for the Church the Steering Group feels that this could prove beneficial to both the clergy and to the Church as a whole in the longer term.
Click to expand...
So it would seem that currently the clergy are not employees and the Church can do what it likes with regard to who it allows to become clergy with no heed to employment law :rolleyes:
 
No doubt the answer will be along the lines of employed in the service of god....

Nice get-out clause really.
 
The Sex Discrimination Act (easily findable on the web...) contains clauses like the following relating to Clergy,
Nothing in this Part applies to employment for purposes of an organised religion where the employment is limited to one sex so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers.
Click to expand...
While we have freedom of religion we have to allow religions to discriminate. I don't see the problem. It's like any employer being allowed to choose employees based on their ability to do the job. A gay priest is a contradiction in many doctrines, like a blind taxi driver.

Paul
 
Just so I have got this clear then:

At the same time as we have laws to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. and government bodies to ensure that these laws are enforced, we also have religions whose servants are free to promote some or all of the above discriminations without fear of prosecution.

:newbie:
 
If that was applied consistently paul, it would be difficult to argue with.

However, take the case of Dr John (not the bluesman!)... As a gay member of the clergy, he is accepted as being able to do his job. But on the suggestion of promotion to being a Bishop, there is outcry. Yet people are ok with him being a Dean.

This seems inconsistent.
 
Paul Ranson said:
You don't seem to have it clear.

Would you agree that it was reasonable to discriminate against blind people when employing bus drivers?

Paul
Click to expand...
Discrimination against a blind person would involve preventing that person from doing something they are capable of doing. A blind person is NOT capable of driving a bus. That's not discrimination. It's common sense.
 
Good thoughts. I was going to explain in length why peadophilia was chosen as an intentional counter arguement. However, window decided to freeze again...... ahhhhh..... why can't they get this thing to work.

Edit.

Let's try again.

As I was saying it was intentional to use paedophilia as a counter argument to see if we really believe when a human behaviour which is recognise as common and prevalent in all cultures must mean it is normal or indeed acceptable. Paedophilia is also common. It also has been observe in many societies and indeed has been recorded since, recorded history. It is just that in this part of our world and period no one would even consider it acceptable. Is paedophilia a disease or inborn sexual preference too? If some one manage to link this behaviour with a gene does it make it suddenly tolerable too? Homosexuality is a human behaviour that has been made a sin by western culture for some time but seem to be accepted long ago by certain section of Indian culture. In fact one wonders if there seem to be an affinity to people with artistic personality. It seems there is a strong movement by the beautiful people in arts, in the media and politicians to champion this behaviour since it is common at least among them. It is up to the society to decide what is acceptable within our time period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chris,
in the la la land of organised religion the analogy of blind person / bus driver and e.g. gay man / priest does hold true. according to 'church law' being homosexual does disclude you from being a priest.
also, once again, in the whacky world of organised religon being a homosexual is a trial visited upon you by god, you are supposed to rise above it, get married, have kids and go to heaven.
i guess if you were a closeted homosexual you could be a priest THEN as you'd be doing things the church's way.
i remember seeing a documentary on tv a while ago about some american church that was 'curing' homosexuals. there were a number of gay men 'fighting their affliction' with families and children - as if the divorce divorce rate wasn;t high enough already.

-I must add that i'm not advocating any of the above, but having been arround some pretty rabid religous types i know how they think and thought it would be fun to share a glimpse into their mentalist minds.
cheers


julian
 
I think where the problem lays is the word "job",i.e they are getting paid for it,a wage,which is where the church is IMHO wrong,they are "supposed" to follow the teachings of christ,and the bible,so would need to look at Jesus, and ask was it a job for him?did early christians get paid? I guess the answer is no,but the Church has made it a career where you go up the hierachy,you don't even have to believe(Bible),its just a job,money.So there lies the problem,the original idea has been changed by them ,like alot of other things,there commision say, is to teach the Bible,and that is all of it,not just the bits that suits them,clearly if they believed the bible,God forbids clearly homosexuality,meaning just that,not that these people should be treated different to others,look at the type of people Jesus preached freely too.There is your answer,being a Christian shouldn't be a Job,but a lifestyle,I think the history of the Church has alot to answer for,burning people at the stake for trying to read the Bible,witches,peadophiles,too many things that are contrary to the bible.

So I guess the simple answer to Isaacs question would be,working for a company is a job,no discripencies,like colour,religion,sexual orientation,where the church shouldn't be viewed as a job,and just teach to thoes who want to hear,free choice,what the bible says.IMHO.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top