?

Log in

No account? Create an account
A sidelight on the Pope and the Equality Bill - Input Junkie
February 2nd, 2010
11:37 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
A sidelight on the Pope and the Equality Bill
From The Washington Post:
"Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet ... the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs," he told the bishops.

I can't figure out what religious belief is being squelched. Ok, the Pope believes that homosexuality is sinful, but I'll note that he isn't generally opposed to hiring sinners. Nor even opposed to hiring sinners who don't agree with him about whether they're sinners.

And I've never heard of any rule [1] which says that you may not hire people who don't share your religion. There's nothing in the Bible which says "Thou shalt not hire a gay accountant." [2]

[1]Though I'm willing to find out if I've missed something.

[2] Wibble alert. Did they have accounting back then? I think the Babylonians had accounting, but did it become a lost art for a while?

(23 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:siderea
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To clarify what is merely implicit in the wikipedia article, the reason the expression "double entry bookkeeping" isn't redundant is that there are other, non-double-entry sorts of bookkeeping. Double entry is a rather recent innovation in the history of managing accounts, being less than 1,000 years old.
[User Picture]
From:chickenfeet2003
Date:February 2nd, 2010 04:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I imagine the money changers in the temple must have kept some sort of books.
[User Picture]
From:siderea
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would be profoundly shocked if the people who could run a census from the Thames to the Euprates didn't have specialists in keeping track of funds. But I don't know that for a fact.

ETA: Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary tells me:

account, subst. (...) =account books tabulae (-arum)
accountant, scriba


Edited at 2010-02-02 05:15 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:fabricdragon
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
actually, the Catholic church, and several other churches, are upset over SEVERAl things
1. hiring people who openly break church laws/rules/ guides as church employees certainly sends a confusing message.
2. the Catholic church cannot place children in a home that doesnt conform to their idea of a healthy/moral/safe place for kids.... but they were forced to shut down ALL orphan placement in many areas because the new laws mean they cannot "discriminate" against gays in placing children......which means that they cannot follow their own religious guidelines for placing children.

etc, etc, etc
not to mention the issues with Catholic/religious hospitals being told they must administer abortions under the new laws...... which is also all about religious issues and freedom to practice.
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
not to mention the issues with Catholic/religious hospitals being told they must administer abortions under the new laws...... which is also all about religious issues and freedom to practice.

What new law is this?

Some people were claiming the Freedom of Choice Act would have such an effect, but that died in Congress back in 2007, and Obama has said that he doesn't consider reintroducing it a high priority. Considering the leisurely pace with which he moves on things he does say are a high priority, odds are it's not coming back any time soon.

Here's an article from the Catholic News Service dispelling some of the rumors about the proposed law.
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:February 2nd, 2010 07:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
D'oh! I missed that Pope benny was talking about the UK.
[User Picture]
From:autopope
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
not to mention the issues with Catholic/religious hospitals being told they must administer abortions under the new laws...... which is also all about religious issues and freedom to practice.

Where did you get that nonsense from?

There aren't any Catholic/religious hospitals in the NHS! I don't think there are any private ones in the UK, either. Medicine isn't the religious sectarian issue that education is.

Nor are Catholic doctors/nurses required to administer abortions contrary to their conscience. (I was in the pub just last night with an Irish catholic doctor working in the NHS. His attitude is simple: "I just don't do gyn work and have no qualifications in contraceptive advice.")

I suspect you've been reading too much American fundy propaganda.

What this is really about is Catholic schools not being allowed to practice bigotry against teachers, lay employees, or other non-clergy staff who don't toe the line. (There is, I gather, a loophole in the law for practicing members of clergy; it's obviously a bit barking to take non-discrimination to the extreme of allowing, say, a Catholic to sue for discrimination if a Mosque refuses to offer them a job as Imam.)

Edited at 2010-02-02 05:50 pm (UTC)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:February 2nd, 2010 08:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Then they shouldn't be in the business of orphanages or any sort of gynecological care (especially not care after rape, when emergency contraceptives are needed asap and the victim may not be up to going to 'another faciity').

Btw, scrolling down past the WP quote, my mind tossed up "And yet you incessantly stand on your head, do you think at your age it is right?"

/bemusedoutsider here/
[User Picture]
From:holzman
Date:February 2nd, 2010 11:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
hiring people who openly break church laws/rules/ guides as church employees certainly sends a confusing message

Not the least in the world. The clear and unambiguous message is that when a Church acts in secular matters, it is bound by secular law. Requiring a Priest adhere to Church teachings is a bona fide job requirement. Requiring the secretary or janitor to do so is not.

Hiring people, placing children for adoption, and the practice of medicine are secular activities.

Did you really mean to suggest that the Church does not discriminate against Gays by refusing to let them adopt children with those scare quotes? Really?
[User Picture]
From:fabricdragon
Date:February 3rd, 2010 12:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
i never said anyone doesnt discriminate.

i said that the church has a vested interest in placing children, who are in their care, into homes they find suitable.

their idea of suitable is NOT the same of secular adoption agencies.
fact

so if a Jewish adoption agency said they wanted to place the children in their care with solid jewsih parents, who will raise the children in accordance with jewish law/religious rules.... obviously they will discriminate against non jews....... right? or anything contrary to Jewish religious law.....
right?

so if you have a religious adoption agency they will OBVIOUSLY place children with parents who meet their religions idea of "good family"

and why does an adoption agency have to be secular? its not like Catholic adoption agencies dont claim to be Catholic?

i cant adopt from Jewish agencies (not Jewish) form Muslim agencies (not Muslim) or from China (too fat) thats their right. i may not like it.. but its their adoption agency.



[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:February 3rd, 2010 02:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Do Catholic adoption agencies only let Catholic parents adopt?
[User Picture]
From:goodbyemyboy
Date:February 3rd, 2010 04:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
Actually there was a recent case in the UK where an Orthodox Jewish school was successfully sued for religious discrimination for not admitting non-Jewish students. Don't have a link on hand, though...
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:February 3rd, 2010 08:09 am (UTC)
(Link)
Here's a link. It's actually a bit more complicated than that: Orthodox Jewish school, the kid's mother converted to Judaism under a non-Orthodox authority, meaning the kid wasn't Jewish by Orthodox standards. The courts decided that the school was discriminating on the basis of ethnic origins, which is forbidden.
[User Picture]
From:holzman
Date:February 3rd, 2010 07:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
i never said anyone doesnt discriminate.

Nor did I say you did. I called out your use of scare quotes in the context of a sentence about a specific organization performing a specific activity in a discriminatory manner.

so if a Jewish adoption agency said they wanted to place the children in their care with solid jewsih parents, who will raise the children in accordance with jewish law/religious rules.... obviously they will discriminate against non jews....... right? or anything contrary to Jewish religious law.....
right?


If you're under the impression that I think a Jewish adoption agency should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, you've confused me with someone else.

and why does an adoption agency have to be secular?

Because adopting children is a secular activity, regulated by the secular state. Being Catholic doesn't exempt Catholic organizations from having to conform to fire codes, either.

i cant adopt from Jewish agencies (not Jewish) form Muslim agencies (not Muslim) or from China (too fat) thats their right. i may not like it.. but its their adoption agency.

You are aware that Americans have been adopting children from China for decades now, yes?



[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:February 3rd, 2010 02:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not letting obese people adopt from China is a relatively recent rule change.
[User Picture]
From:agrumer
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's a tenet of mainstream Christianity that (with three or four exceptions) all people are sinners, including the Pope.
[User Picture]
From:richardthinks
Date:February 2nd, 2010 05:32 pm (UTC)

can't resist an irrelevant side-topic

(Link)
Some sort of accounting is implicit in tally systems, which feature in some of our earliest records of human production (eg caves at Lascaux). There was definitely a class of professional book-keepers in ancient Egypt, although I'm hesitating right now about the periods for which we have direct evidence. Tribute has been calculated as a proportion of production/earnings also at least since New Kingdom Egypt.
The evidence cited on Wikipedia regarding 12th c double entry most likely comes from Goitein's A Mediterranean Society, which shows very detailed book-keeping, amortizing of loans and many features of what we consider "modern" accounting among Jewish businessmen in Cairo.
...I was going to write about the parable of the talents, which seems to offer direct evidence of systems of investment and the use of business agents, but when was it written? 3rd c AD? 4th? We might as well say "at least since the time of Mohammed," since we already know he was at some point a traveling business agent for a cloth merchant and accountable to his boss.
[User Picture]
From:sashajwolf
Date:February 3rd, 2010 04:54 pm (UTC)

Re: can't resist an irrelevant side-topic

(Link)
The parable of the talents is 1st century CE.
[User Picture]
From:chomiji
Date:February 2nd, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)

From Texas A&M U:

Who Was the First Accountant?

To cut to the chase, roll down to the end for a timeline/summary in table form.

[User Picture]
From:richardthinks
Date:February 2nd, 2010 09:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hmmm, I can understand why the A&M writer says "pioneering efforts should have a direct impact on modern accounting" but I have to take issue with "their modern impact dates back to Medieval Italy" - it does, but only if you choose to disregard the influence on those "medieval" Italians of the south side of the med.

It's just the old master narrative of Western history popping up again: stuff happened in the Middle East but then it was ancient. By the time it moved to Europe and got reinvented it had become modern.
[User Picture]
From:redneckgaijin
Date:February 2nd, 2010 09:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, there were accountants back then. However, they were not regarded well- for no small part because they tended to be tax collectors.

You see, back in Roman times (and quite a lot more recently as well) the government would basically auction off the right to collect taxes to private individuals. These individuals would then make their profit by wringing out more in taxes than what they paid to become the tax collector. Zacchaeus was odious not because he was a government bureaucrat, but because he was profiting directly from extorting taxes from the people. Indeed, it was the fact that he was a private actor, not a civil servant, that allowed him to return everyone's tax money after he heard the teachings of Christ.

[User Picture]
From:nancylebov
Date:February 2nd, 2010 09:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It would surprise me if at least some businesses didn't keep their own internal records.
[User Picture]
From:sodyera
Date:February 3rd, 2010 04:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I cast Pope Benedict as a character in my novel. The first line I came up with for him went:

I know all you see before you is a kindly old man, and I’d like nothing better than to buy some souvenirs, have a little dinner and tell everybody back home about your hospitality. However, this is merely a disguise, and if I’m forced to drop it I shall do so at once. So for your own sakes, please do not force me to become less than a kindly old man.
nancybuttons.com Powered by LiveJournal.com