OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:16:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti-Discrimination Laws and the Ordination of Women  (Read 2764 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,218



WWW
« on: June 18, 2010, 11:18:34 PM »

On a completely different topic, but related to the cited law against discrimination in general, someone asked me if legislation against discrimination would require us to hire women as priests.

The law gives an exception "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;"

I think there should also be some exception in the US allowing us to "discriminate" against women in our hiring practes, despite Title VII. Someone asked me about this after a service I attended two weeks ago, and we couldn't come to an answer. I still can't!!!

Thanks!
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 11:22:24 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2010, 01:22:44 AM »

I truly believe that laws the limit freedom of speech should be struck down, but at the very least, I hope 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code is repealed soon.

That being said, if you believe there should be an exception allowing for discrimination based on gender in hiring policies, why limit it to that?  Why not race, religion, sexual orientation, choice of breakfast cereal, or some other arbitrary distinction? 

You need not worry though, McClure v. Salvation Army pretty much guaranteed protection of discriminatory ministerial hiring policies by religious institutions.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2010, 07:26:17 PM »

Most of the limits of these types of laws have been defined by the Supreme Court, if not in response to federal legislation, in response to state legislation. If any notable changes occur, they'll occur in the Court, not in the Legislature.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2010, 07:39:52 PM »

I truly believe that laws the limit freedom of speech should be struck down, but at the very least, I hope 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code is repealed soon.

That being said, if you believe there should be an exception allowing for discrimination based on gender in hiring policies, why limit it to that?  Why not race, religion, sexual orientation, choice of breakfast cereal, or some other arbitrary distinction? 

You need not worry though, McClure v. Salvation Army pretty much guaranteed protection of discriminatory ministerial hiring policies by religious institutions.
gender. Hardly arbitrary. Same race, religion, sexual orietation.  Choice of breakfast cereal I'll give you.

What is at issue is that in many cases the distinction doesn't matter.  Then there are the cases when it does.  Take for instance the Jewish priesthood (not the rabbinate, mind you, the priesthood) or the Zorastrian one.  The former must be a descendant of Aaron, the latter a member of the Magian caste. In both you have the question of whether they really accept those not born into it. Is that discrimination?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2010, 07:44:44 PM »

I truly believe that laws the limit freedom of speech should be struck down, but at the very least, I hope 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code is repealed soon.

That being said, if you believe there should be an exception allowing for discrimination based on gender in hiring policies, why limit it to that?  Why not race, religion, sexual orientation, choice of breakfast cereal, or some other arbitrary distinction? 

You need not worry though, McClure v. Salvation Army pretty much guaranteed protection of discriminatory ministerial hiring policies by religious institutions.
gender. Hardly arbitrary. Same race, religion, sexual orietation.  Choice of breakfast cereal I'll give you.

What is at issue is that in many cases the distinction doesn't matter.  Then there are the cases when it does.  Take for instance the Jewish priesthood (not the rabbinate, mind you, the priesthood) or the Zorastrian one.  The former must be a descendant of Aaron, the latter a member of the Magian caste. In both you have the question of whether they really accept those not born into it. Is that discrimination?

It is discrimination, that much is clear. The question is how much discrimination is protected under the first amendment. I would argue that it should be protected as long as these clerical positions are not paid and therefore do not fall within the state's authority to regulate commerce. But the court seems to be happy to protect discrimination even for paid clerical positions for the time being. No grantee this will always remain the case; but if something changes it'll have to be either through a constitutional amendment or a reevaluation of existing case law by SCOTUS.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2010, 10:33:02 AM »

Except that we do not have an application/hiring process. The decision whether or not to ordain a man lies with the bishop, not a set of policies. The circumstances are quite different from those of business.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2010, 01:14:27 PM »

Except that we do not have an application/hiring process. The decision whether or not to ordain a man lies with the bishop, not a set of policies. The circumstances are quite different from those of business.

Not true, there are canons that define eligibility, as well as academic requirements implemented by the Churches in modern times, there are even Canons that prevent discrimination in the hiring of clergy (specifically prohibiting a hereditary priesthood). There is an application process, employment screening (including psychological screening), etc. Yes, the application process is very involved and can take months even for someone who already has the academic prerequisites, but so can a job in the government that requires a security clearance. Then during the course of employment many of the functions of a priest are quite similar to secular jobs, including managing finances, counseling, even managing youth sports. The only functions of a priest that are purely religious are the liturgical functions, which are technically uncanonical to charge for. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2010, 02:08:54 PM »

I stand by what I said before. I am aware of the canons. But, in truth, it is the bishop's determination. You can have a man meeting every requirement, and still he will not be ordained. A man can even be ordained against his will, in a sense. The main function of a priest, by the way, is liturgical.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2010, 02:58:24 PM »

I stand by what I said before. I am aware of the canons. But, in truth, it is the bishop's determination. You can have a man meeting every requirement, and still he will not be ordained. A man can even be ordained against his will, in a sense. The main function of a priest, by the way, is liturgical.

And I've never said that you shouldn't be allowed to have discrimination in your priesthood, only that you shouldn't be allowed to pay your priests if there is. It's a balance between allowing religious freedom and allowing the state to use it's lawful authority over commerce to correct an injustice in the marketplace. As long as you don't pay your priests, the state no longer has a compelling interest to be involved.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2010, 01:51:34 AM »

Even if legislation "forced" us to accept female Priests, I don't think any Orthodox Church would comply. We aren't too good about changing our faith when urged to by political powers Wink
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,861



« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2010, 02:09:23 AM »

Even if legislation "forced" us to accept female Priests, I don't think any Orthodox Church would comply. We aren't too good about changing our faith when urged to by political powers Wink

Except when the political powers are effectively running the Church? Do you remember Peter "the Great" and the abolition of the Moscow Patriarchate? The whole form of church government in Russia was modeled after the Magisterial Reformed churches for centuries, putting the Sovereign as the head of the Church and relegating Church officials to be essentially directors of a governmental "Ministry of Religion." It took the Bolshevik Revolution to get the Patriarchate reestablished, and that only remained free from being a puppet of the new atheist regime for several years.

The Orthodox Church is very good at being influenced by external factors, especially government, because she is an organism, albeit a divine/human one, but still based in a real world with real people in it. Besides, it's not supposed to be some Church vs. Political Powers dichotomy. Remember the symphony? It sounds like someone might be a bit more of a secularist than they realize.  Wink
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,924



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2010, 08:57:42 AM »


...some people just like to cause to cause "trouble".

Nothing gets their juices flowing like "stirring the pot".

You know....instead of focusing one's efforts on demolishing Christ's Church (because that is exactly what forcing the issue of a women clergy is attempting to do) why not channel that energy in to getting equal pay for equal work - for the jobs women already have.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2010, 10:56:31 AM »

Well, GiC, I don't think that argument holds water.

The problem the state faces is that if they take your argument too far, the defense will be Affirmative Action programs and the equal protection clause.  Mind you, the state would have to force Moslems to hire female imams and force a vast number of independent churchs to prove non-discrimination the way banks are forced to by lending practices.  In a nutshell, it will open up a can of worms that even the courts right now are assiduously avoiding.

The bigger risk for churches are the regulation of Sacraments, such as Marriage rites.  However, if the Justice Department goes after the hiring of clergy, it will open a firestorm that will bring down the administration.




I stand by what I said before. I am aware of the canons. But, in truth, it is the bishop's determination. You can have a man meeting every requirement, and still he will not be ordained. A man can even be ordained against his will, in a sense. The main function of a priest, by the way, is liturgical.

And I've never said that you shouldn't be allowed to have discrimination in your priesthood, only that you shouldn't be allowed to pay your priests if there is. It's a balance between allowing religious freedom and allowing the state to use it's lawful authority over commerce to correct an injustice in the marketplace. As long as you don't pay your priests, the state no longer has a compelling interest to be involved.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2010, 12:24:59 PM »

Well, GiC, I don't think that argument holds water.

The problem the state faces is that if they take your argument too far, the defense will be Affirmative Action programs and the equal protection clause.  Mind you, the state would have to force Moslems to hire female imams and force a vast number of independent churchs to prove non-discrimination the way banks are forced to by lending practices.  In a nutshell, it will open up a can of worms that even the courts right now are assiduously avoiding.

The bigger risk for churches are the regulation of Sacraments, such as Marriage rites.  However, if the Justice Department goes after the hiring of clergy, it will open a firestorm that will bring down the administration.


I never said Moslems would have to hire female imams, just that if they didn't, they would not be allowed to pay their imams. I only suggest regulating jobs, regulating economic activity, not clerical positions, the two do not have to be one and the same. In fact, I would argue that insisting that clergy must be paid for their services is Simony, something the christian churches (in theory at least) already condemn. And I don't think the Apostles demanded cost of living adjustments and health care benefits, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wink

The concern here has nothing to do with religion, per se, but with insuring equal opportunity in the market place...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth. It's not only the Churches that I think we should go after, we should also go after the military (though, we must give them credit for making more advances on their own than many Churches have managed, most notably the recent opening of the submarine programme to women and other things that we're not allowed to talk about on this board). But these are purely economic concerns, not matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the first amendment but within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

No one's saying you shouldn't believe in a male priesthood, no one's even saying you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood, I'm only saying that you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood and pay them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,594



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2010, 12:34:53 PM »


...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth...


The Bernadottes, the Windsors, the Wangchucks, the Sauds, the Grimaldis, the Tupous...
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2010, 12:39:33 PM »

Government has no business, and not authority as per the constitution, to get invovled in whether or not clerics are paid.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2010, 12:56:20 PM »

Even if legislation "forced" us to accept female Priests, I don't think any Orthodox Church would comply. We aren't too good about changing our faith when urged to by political powers Wink

Except when the political powers are effectively running the Church? Do you remember Peter "the Great" and the abolition of the Moscow Patriarchate? The whole form of church government in Russia was modeled after the Magisterial Reformed churches for centuries, putting the Sovereign as the head of the Church and relegating Church officials to be essentially directors of a governmental "Ministry of Religion." It took the Bolshevik Revolution to get the Patriarchate reestablished, and that only remained free from being a puppet of the new atheist regime for several years.

The Orthodox Church is very good at being influenced by external factors, especially government, because she is an organism, albeit a divine/human one, but still based in a real world with real people in it. Besides, it's not supposed to be some Church vs. Political Powers dichotomy. Remember the symphony? It sounds like someone might be a bit more of a secularist than they realize.  Wink
Actually, the Bolsheviks came to power after the Patriarchate was reestablished (but just barely).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2010, 01:41:47 PM »

Well, GiC, I don't think that argument holds water.

The problem the state faces is that if they take your argument too far, the defense will be Affirmative Action programs and the equal protection clause.  Mind you, the state would have to force Moslems to hire female imams and force a vast number of independent churchs to prove non-discrimination the way banks are forced to by lending practices.  In a nutshell, it will open up a can of worms that even the courts right now are assiduously avoiding.

The bigger risk for churches are the regulation of Sacraments, such as Marriage rites.  However, if the Justice Department goes after the hiring of clergy, it will open a firestorm that will bring down the administration.


I never said Moslems would have to hire female imams, just that if they didn't, they would not be allowed to pay their imams. I only suggest regulating jobs, regulating economic activity, not clerical positions, the two do not have to be one and the same. In fact, I would argue that insisting that clergy must be paid for their services is Simony, something the christian churches (in theory at least) already condemn. And I don't think the Apostles demanded cost of living adjustments and health care benefits, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wink

The concern here has nothing to do with religion, per se, but with insuring equal opportunity in the market place...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth. It's not only the Churches that I think we should go after, we should also go after the military (though, we must give them credit for making more advances on their own than many Churches have managed, most notably the recent opening of the submarine programme to women and other things that we're not allowed to talk about on this board). But these are purely economic concerns, not matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the first amendment but within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

No one's saying you shouldn't believe in a male priesthood, no one's even saying you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood, I'm only saying that you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood and pay them.

I have a feeling that your beef is not with equal rights for women but with organized religion. Period.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 01:42:05 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2010, 02:21:34 PM »

Well, GiC, I don't think that argument holds water.

The problem the state faces is that if they take your argument too far, the defense will be Affirmative Action programs and the equal protection clause.  Mind you, the state would have to force Moslems to hire female imams and force a vast number of independent churchs to prove non-discrimination the way banks are forced to by lending practices.  In a nutshell, it will open up a can of worms that even the courts right now are assiduously avoiding.

The bigger risk for churches are the regulation of Sacraments, such as Marriage rites.  However, if the Justice Department goes after the hiring of clergy, it will open a firestorm that will bring down the administration.


I never said Moslems would have to hire female imams, just that if they didn't, they would not be allowed to pay their imams. I only suggest regulating jobs, regulating economic activity, not clerical positions, the two do not have to be one and the same. In fact, I would argue that insisting that clergy must be paid for their services is Simony, something the christian churches (in theory at least) already condemn. And I don't think the Apostles demanded cost of living adjustments and health care benefits, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wink

The concern here has nothing to do with religion, per se, but with insuring equal opportunity in the market place...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth. It's not only the Churches that I think we should go after, we should also go after the military (though, we must give them credit for making more advances on their own than many Churches have managed, most notably the recent opening of the submarine programme to women and other things that we're not allowed to talk about on this board). But these are purely economic concerns, not matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the first amendment but within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

No one's saying you shouldn't believe in a male priesthood, no one's even saying you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood, I'm only saying that you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood and pay them.

I have a feeling that your beef is not with equal rights for women but with organized religion. Period.

One of my main problems with organized religion is their discrimination against women, people of other faiths, other minorities, etc. You will find me FAR more tolerant of the ECUSA than the Mohammedans or even the Papists.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,891


« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2010, 02:49:37 PM »

So gay rights advocacy groups must hire anti gay fundamentalists since to not do so would be discrimination.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2010, 02:59:18 PM »

So gay rights advocacy groups must hire anti gay fundamentalists since to not do so would be discrimination.

Now, now, you know we're not allowed to discuss that. Wink
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 02:59:35 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2010, 03:17:46 PM »

Well, GiC, I don't think that argument holds water.

The problem the state faces is that if they take your argument too far, the defense will be Affirmative Action programs and the equal protection clause.  Mind you, the state would have to force Moslems to hire female imams and force a vast number of independent churchs to prove non-discrimination the way banks are forced to by lending practices.  In a nutshell, it will open up a can of worms that even the courts right now are assiduously avoiding.

The bigger risk for churches are the regulation of Sacraments, such as Marriage rites.  However, if the Justice Department goes after the hiring of clergy, it will open a firestorm that will bring down the administration.


I never said Moslems would have to hire female imams, just that if they didn't, they would not be allowed to pay their imams. I only suggest regulating jobs, regulating economic activity, not clerical positions, the two do not have to be one and the same. In fact, I would argue that insisting that clergy must be paid for their services is Simony, something the christian churches (in theory at least) already condemn. And I don't think the Apostles demanded cost of living adjustments and health care benefits, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wink

The concern here has nothing to do with religion, per se, but with insuring equal opportunity in the market place...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth. It's not only the Churches that I think we should go after, we should also go after the military (though, we must give them credit for making more advances on their own than many Churches have managed, most notably the recent opening of the submarine programme to women and other things that we're not allowed to talk about on this board). But these are purely economic concerns, not matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the first amendment but within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

No one's saying you shouldn't believe in a male priesthood, no one's even saying you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood, I'm only saying that you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood and pay them.

I have a feeling that your beef is not with equal rights for women but with organized religion. Period.

One of my main problems with organized religion is their discrimination against women, people of other faiths, other minorities, etc. You will find me FAR more tolerant of the ECUSA than the Mohammedans or even the Papists.

The only discrimination that I detect is the violation of our 1st Amendment rights that the Government will make no laws with respect to the establishment of religion, nor will prohibit the free exercise thereof. We do not believe in these things and will not rollover for any government that tries to force us to partake in evil. We will give unto Caesar what is Caesar's but we will never give to Caesar that which belongs to God.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2010, 06:22:10 PM »

Dear GiC,

Again, the argument does not make sense. 

First of all, to forbid a church from paying clergy is effectively regulating the religion, which is a violation of the Constitution.  Religions decide the qualifications for clergy, period.  If the state begins to regulate, either by banning practices or penalizing those with 'objectionable' practices, then the government is effectively establishing doctrine.

Second, simony is the selling of Sacraments, which is not the same as providing for the clergy who provide the Sacraments.  Yes, there is a difference: any Orthodox may come to me and receive the Sacraments, regardless of whether they donate or not.  But, common sense tells us that if you want pastors to take time to hear your problems and provide services, the community need to provide for them.  St. Paul teaches this.

If we take your approach, since your stated 'faith' is mathematics, should mathematicians not be paid?  Wink

What the Constitution provides for is that all religions, even the objectionable minorities like us, have equal protection.  The ECUSA and United Church of Math can each have standards (or lack thereof as the case may be) and receive the same protection.  When you begin to judge one religious group, you open the flood gates to things you might not want, such as a 'state religion' (i.e. uniform standards of belief and practice) which may end up requiring you to drop, let's say, your faith in mathematics in favor of, let's say, The Great Pink Elephant.

The same freedom which allows you to publicly state that you believe in Mathematics must also extend to the other who does not, otherwise we have the beginnings of a state religion(s).



I never said Moslems would have to hire female imams, just that if they didn't, they would not be allowed to pay their imams. I only suggest regulating jobs, regulating economic activity, not clerical positions, the two do not have to be one and the same. In fact, I would argue that insisting that clergy must be paid for their services is Simony, something the christian churches (in theory at least) already condemn. And I don't think the Apostles demanded cost of living adjustments and health care benefits, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wink

The concern here has nothing to do with religion, per se, but with insuring equal opportunity in the market place...to prohibit the creation of jobs for one class of people that others are denied by virtue of birth. It's not only the Churches that I think we should go after, we should also go after the military (though, we must give them credit for making more advances on their own than many Churches have managed, most notably the recent opening of the submarine programme to women and other things that we're not allowed to talk about on this board). But these are purely economic concerns, not matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the first amendment but within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

No one's saying you shouldn't believe in a male priesthood, no one's even saying you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood, I'm only saying that you shouldn't be able to have a male priesthood and pay them.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2010, 06:56:55 PM »

Dear GiC,

Again, the argument does not make sense. 

First of all, to forbid a church from paying clergy is effectively regulating the religion, which is a violation of the Constitution.  Religions decide the qualifications for clergy, period.  If the state begins to regulate, either by banning practices or penalizing those with 'objectionable' practices, then the government is effectively establishing doctrine.

Second, simony is the selling of Sacraments, which is not the same as providing for the clergy who provide the Sacraments.  Yes, there is a difference: any Orthodox may come to me and receive the Sacraments, regardless of whether they donate or not.  But, common sense tells us that if you want pastors to take time to hear your problems and provide services, the community need to provide for them.  St. Paul teaches this.

If we take your approach, since your stated 'faith' is mathematics, should mathematicians not be paid?  Wink

What the Constitution provides for is that all religions, even the objectionable minorities like us, have equal protection.  The ECUSA and United Church of Math can each have standards (or lack thereof as the case may be) and receive the same protection.  When you begin to judge one religious group, you open the flood gates to things you might not want, such as a 'state religion' (i.e. uniform standards of belief and practice) which may end up requiring you to drop, let's say, your faith in mathematics in favor of, let's say, The Great Pink Elephant.

The same freedom which allows you to publicly state that you believe in Mathematics must also extend to the other who does not, otherwise we have the beginnings of a state religion(s).


If Mathematicians were hired based on discrimination against protected classes, then I would argue that they shouldn't be paid. The first amendment grants you the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, it does not grant you the right to inflict material harm on others and the law defines denial of employment on account of a protected class as just that, material harm.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2010, 07:45:39 PM »

They may apply for any position where they meet the requirements. Fortunately for us our faith which is protected from government intervention states the qualification for priests as male therefore no female can be put into that position because she does not meet the qualification. No material harm is done to anyone as no one not even a male has a "right" to ordination. We can agree to disagree. I could care less you could amend the Constitution we will never allow for its implementation. If force is attempted we will simply meet in secret in catacomb churches. We will be faithful to God even unto death.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2010, 08:53:12 PM »

They may apply for any position where they meet the requirements. Fortunately for us our faith which is protected from government intervention states the qualification for priests as male therefore no female can be put into that position because she does not meet the qualification. No material harm is done to anyone as no one not even a male has a "right" to ordination. We can agree to disagree. I could care less you could amend the Constitution we will never allow for its implementation. If force is attempted we will simply meet in secret in catacomb churches. We will be faithful to God even unto death.

Have you been reading what I've been writing? No need to meet in catacombs (really, catacombs? outside New Orleans were are you going to find those in the US?), I wouldn't even suggest that you can't have a male only priesthood...only that you can't PAY them. You seem to suggest that money is an essential part of the priesthood to the point of Simony. And if you violated such a law, no one would arrest you, you'd simply be liable for civil damages in court. You're making much more out of this proposition than is really there.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2010, 09:09:46 PM »

Dear GiC,

Again, i think you are confusing legal categories.  It is established legal precedent that all religious organizations to set their own standards regarding qualifications.  What you are arguing for is an overturning of centuries of legal precedent, which you can do, but that does not mean that the arguments for 'protected classes' (a very recent and tenuous concept historically-speaking) have the right to overturn rights of others in regards to the priivate practice of worship.  Again, the difference is private practice versus interfering with the rights of others in the general public.  For example, a club may not discriminate if association with it is necessary for participation in public life.

The Orthodox Church is hardly such a 'club' that grants particular status to its members.  I would argue that, in many ways, we qualify as a 'protected class' in that we are a minority in this country and have been historically persecuted even in this era (ask Middle Eastern Christians about their experiences, which are as a whole far worse than and 'discrimination' we see in the modern US).

That being said, you would have a very hard time providing that the qualifications of the Orthodox Church in regards to the priesthood (one which being a male does not automatically qualify one, in which case divorcees, felons, etc. could also sue for 'discrimination') causes material damage to women who can, quite easily, find much better paying and respectable jobs than being an under-paid and often ill-treated clergyman in the Orthodox Church.  Just the thought of it gives me quite a bit to chuckle about!

On the whole, you might well consider the fact that there are numerous groups of legal minds, such as the ACLU, that would love to sue us on the same ground you offer.  They have not, which should make you think for just a moment that, perhaps, someone with a law degree or two has already figured out your argument won't work in any US court as presently constituted.

We have plenty of enemies gunning for us.

All we have is our faith in God.


If Mathematicians were hired based on discrimination against protected classes, then I would argue that they shouldn't be paid. The first amendment grants you the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, it does not grant you the right to inflict material harm on others and the law defines denial of employment on account of a protected class as just that, material harm.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2010, 09:12:35 PM »

Um, GiC... New Orleans doesn't have catacombs... parts of the city are below sea level and the water table is so high they entomb above ground.


Have you been reading what I've been writing? No need to meet in catacombs (really, catacombs? outside New Orleans were are you going to find those in the US?), I wouldn't even suggest that you can't have a male only priesthood...only that you can't PAY them. You seem to suggest that money is an essential part of the priesthood to the point of Simony. And if you violated such a law, no one would arrest you, you'd simply be liable for civil damages in court. You're making much more out of this proposition than is really there.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2010, 09:30:25 PM »

Well your putting forward a proposition that is unacceptable. I am rather familiar with your religion, secularism. I actually worked for a a very large Catholic Archdiocese for 10 years. I am not Catholic and do not necessarily agree with their doctrines but I will defend their right to exercise their religion. We provided a great deal of social services that took a great deal off the governments hands which was necessary from the constant budget constraints/deficits that the city and state had. There were still those secularist legislators that wanted to force their religion on the Catholic Church. One example was that they wanted to pass legislation that would require Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions. The Archdiocese at great expense operated 17 hospitals in communities that were under served and where people could not necessarily afford treatment. Literally thousands of patients. It looked like the legislation might pass. So taking that into consideration the Archbishop had to inform the city and state that we would have no choice but to close all 17 hospitals under such circumstances and that arrangements would be made to transfer patients and to meet the needs of those that they could no longer serve. Who wins in this? Surely not the RCC or the poor just some Radical special interest. Needless to say after the consequences were made known the bill was overwhelmingly defeated. With the current make up of SCOTUS it is highly unlikely that any attempt to force religious organizations to hire or ordain females or any other type of infringement will be unsuccessful. I see you quote the commerce clause, a much abused clause. I also see you speak of government "authority". Well I am sure you are aware that it is within the peoples authority to dissolve the government and to establish a new one. As for catacomb churches they were very big just a few decades ago in Secular/Atheist countries such as the USSR. All it means is that we meet in private residences and we will still provide for our clergy out of our pockets. Also, please understand that trying to force your views on us in the name of secularism, equality, government authority et. al. is no different than us setting up a state church and us forcing our beliefs on you. You don't want that and neither do we. So lets not throw down any gauntlets.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2010, 09:39:02 PM »

Dear GiC,

Again, i think you are confusing legal categories.  It is established legal precedent that all religious organizations to set their own standards regarding qualifications.  What you are arguing for is an overturning of centuries of legal precedent, which you can do, but that does not mean that the arguments for 'protected classes' (a very recent and tenuous concept historically-speaking) have the right to overturn rights of others in regards to the priivate practice of worship.  Again, the difference is private practice versus interfering with the rights of others in the general public.  For example, a club may not discriminate if association with it is necessary for participation in public life.

The Orthodox Church is hardly such a 'club' that grants particular status to its members.  I would argue that, in many ways, we qualify as a 'protected class' in that we are a minority in this country and have been historically persecuted even in this era (ask Middle Eastern Christians about their experiences, which are as a whole far worse than and 'discrimination' we see in the modern US).

That being said, you would have a very hard time providing that the qualifications of the Orthodox Church in regards to the priesthood (one which being a male does not automatically qualify one, in which case divorcees, felons, etc. could also sue for 'discrimination') causes material damage to women who can, quite easily, find much better paying and respectable jobs than being an under-paid and often ill-treated clergyman in the Orthodox Church.  Just the thought of it gives me quite a bit to chuckle about!

On the whole, you might well consider the fact that there are numerous groups of legal minds, such as the ACLU, that would love to sue us on the same ground you offer.  They have not, which should make you think for just a moment that, perhaps, someone with a law degree or two has already figured out your argument won't work in any US court as presently constituted.

We have plenty of enemies gunning for us.

All we have is our faith in God.


You're right, it won't happen with the court as presently constituted, but the replacement of one conservative justice with a more liberal one could make it a viable possibility. There is a fine line between protected belief and illegal action, it's not a stretch to claim that discriminatory economic activity crosses that line. And the fact that it's not a very well paying job is really a moot point; neither is Walmart, but that doesn't mean they have an exemption from employment law. While this isn't an argument that would be successful today, who know ten or twenty years down the line?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2010, 09:39:41 PM »

Um, GiC... New Orleans doesn't have catacombs... parts of the city are below sea level and the water table is so high they entomb above ground.

Technically they're mausoleums, but they're as close as you're going to find.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2010, 09:48:30 PM »

For one who has faith in mathematics, your tolerance of imprecision is astounding!   Cheesy


Um, GiC... New Orleans doesn't have catacombs... parts of the city are below sea level and the water table is so high they entomb above ground.

Technically they're mausoleums, but they're as close as you're going to find.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2010, 09:55:18 PM »

For one who has faith in mathematics, your tolerance of imprecision is astounding!   Cheesy


Um, GiC... New Orleans doesn't have catacombs... parts of the city are below sea level and the water table is so high they entomb above ground.

Technically they're mausoleums, but they're as close as you're going to find.

LOL Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2010, 11:07:02 PM »

GiC,

I'm glad to see that all that calculus hasn't caused you to lose your sense of humor.

However, if you want serious catacomb action, Los Angeles has the most extensive network other than New York and Chicago.  Most of it was closed off after the '94 quake, but it is fabulous and much of it unexplored.  As a kid I went down a few times.  They severed part of it during the digging of the 10 Freeway nthrough Downtown.  It was built by the Chinese to avoid curfews after a battle between Tongs that left a bunch of settlers dead.  Anglos who sided with the Chinese allowed their basements to become hubs for the network.  An amazing engineering feat.

Of course, New York's underground system in extensive, though very modern.  Portland, OR, has a very interesting 'underground city' in the old part of town if I am not mistaken.

I am sensitive about New Orleans crypts because my family has one there that was damaged by Katrina, or rather Nagan's incompetence.





For one who has faith in mathematics, your tolerance of imprecision is astounding!   Cheesy


Um, GiC... New Orleans doesn't have catacombs... parts of the city are below sea level and the water table is so high they entomb above ground.

Technically they're mausoleums, but they're as close as you're going to find.

LOL Wink
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,218



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2010, 01:35:28 AM »

GiC,

I'm glad to see that all that calculus hasn't caused you to lose your sense of humor.

Or how to say, Zeroed it out?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.143 seconds with 62 queries.