Some people seem to think that the Church should have its freedom curtailed.

Some people believe that the Church should be forced to alter its traditions in order to be more politically correct.

I disagree with this view.

What do you think?

If a church had a tradition of human cannibalism, do you think it should be forced to alter its traditions?

Which church are you talking about?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:Some people seem to think that the Church should have its freedom curtailed.

Some people believe that the Church should be forced to alter its traditions in order to be more politically correct.

I disagree with this view.

What do you think?

I disagree too. When churches start adapting to changing society then they could maintain popularity. If they do not change traditions then they risk becoming obsolete.

Just don't ask me to fund their traditions with public taxes and they can keep all the traditions that they like.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:Some people seem to think that the Church should have its freedom curtailed.

Some people believe that the Church should be forced to alter its traditions in order to be more politically correct.

I disagree with this view.

What do you think?

Some people feel that the church should have special freedoms that the rest of us don't have because they've had those freedoms traditionally.

Some people believe that the church should be able to break the law and discriminate, simply because they always have.

I disagree with this view.

What do you think?

What law do they break?

it's quite simple, if you don't like the Church then don't go!

Does a private golf club have the right to discriminate against players of a certain low standard, or those who are too poor to join?

of course they do.

Does an all boys boarding school have to accept girls?

of course not, because this is how the capitalist system works - private property, ever heard of that?

lobawad wrote:If a church had a tradition of human cannibalism, do you think it should be forced to alter its traditions?

Which church allows that?

Why should the PC liberal ideology be of more value than any other?

CookieJon wrote:Which church are you talking about?

The Christian church in general.

We have seen what happens when "The Church" has unbridled freedom. Do we really need to let them have another bite of the cherry, before we once again say "fuck this" and reign them in?

The law evolves, churches should adapt to the law, like everyone else has to.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:What law do they break?

it's quite simple, if you don't like the Church then don't go!

Does a private golf club have the right to discriminate against players of a certain low standard, or those who are too poor to join?

of course they do.

Does an all boys boarding school have to accept girls?

of course not, because this is how the capitalist system works - private property, ever heard of that?

Throughout much of Europe, Churches are funded with taxpayer money. Pretty well everywhere they have charities to avoid taxes. Charities must always be able to show a public benefit.

I don't think that the church should have its freedom curtailed, except where that freedom impinges on the freedoms of others. This is the same degree of freedom that all should have.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:What law do they break?

it's quite simple, if you don't like the Church then don't go!

Does a private golf club have the right to discriminate against players of a certain low standard, or those who are too poor to join?

of course they do.

Does an all boys boarding school have to accept girls?

of course not, because this is how the capitalist system works - private property, ever heard of that?

Which is why you need to take each church on a case-by-case basis, and the overall term of "the church" is simply not helpful. And if we want to deal with it at a meta-level - well all other religious and non-religious groups should also be covered. But certain churches, such as the Church of England (in England itself anyway) have a special legal status, and they have to apply by the conditions legislated as part of that status - or abandon it.

Personally, I think all such special statuses should be eliminated, and that any and all religious groups should be covered by -exactly- the same laws every other group has to apply by.

Edit: perhaps the OP should come up with exact examples of the traditions churches are being forced to change and we can examine them on a case by case basis, and hopefully be spared the "liberal agenda" type of bullshit rhetoric.

I am mainly referring to the same-sex marriage debate.

but, cut the taxpayer money, for sure.

I'm fine with that.

As Hack said, it's all about your right to throw a punch being curtailed when it hits someone's face.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:I am mainly referring to the same-sex marriage debate.

but, cut the taxpayer money, for sure.

I'm fine with that.

I don't think any church should have it's freedom curtailed. As an Irish Catholic I have no problem with The Church discriminating against gays and not allowing women priests or accepting divorce or contraception in an ever changing country which is in favour of all the above. They only harm themselves. The ever decreasing mass attendance and closure of churches is a testament to that. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:I am mainly referring to the same-sex marriage debate.

Kenneth, are you gay? I ask because you do seem so very concerned with matters of homosexuality. You can tell us, we won't judge you.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:I am mainly referring to the same-sex marriage debate.

but, cut the taxpayer money, for sure.

I'm fine with that.

Marriage is a civil institution nowadays, so your church should indeed have as much (or little) to say about it as a golf club.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:What law do they break?

Covering up for child molesting priests for one. Indoctrinating people with their political beliefs despite their tax-free status for another.

it's quite simple, if you don't like the Church then don't go!

And this has what to do with the price of rice in Hong Kong?

Does a private golf club have the right to discriminate against players of a certain low standard, or those who are too poor to join?

of course they do.

Does an all boys boarding school have to accept girls?

of course not, because this is how the capitalist system works - private property, ever heard of that?

Private property not having to pay any taxes. Yes, I've heard of having your cake and eating it too.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:I am mainly referring to the same-sex marriage debate.

Then perhaps you should frame your OP less nebulously.

but, cut the taxpayer money, for sure.

I'm fine with that.

As far as I'm concerned, if you cut the taxpayer money, your club can discriminate against whomever they want.

Well the position the different belief systems have here is fine.

THey have been sidelined. The only right they still have is to ring a bloody bell on a sunday morning or for a funeral.

The churches are empty. Only 5% say they go sometimes. We have a big problem with old church buildings. What to do with them? They are mostly an eyesore built in the '50's.

The only trouble I have is that I live opposite one of the only churches still open (thanks to the fucking southern fucking baptists). The number of people going to the Dutch reform sevice you can count on both hands and they are all old fuddy duddies.