NationStates Jolt Archive

This question has come up as a result of the thread about Birmingham Christian Union. It is this. Discrimination does make sense with regard to certian issues. People here act like whenever the word "discrimination" is said with regard to any group, it is immidately racisim or something else rather horrible. But it isnt always.

For example with the Birmingham CU issue. This is an example of where people confuse racial and religious discrimination. Relgious groups/clubs/societies etc are basicly like any other group of like minded people. They come together because they are of a like mind. So you can understand that they would wish that if someone wanted to learn of their mindset and what its like, they are happy to let them become a member. However if someone has an opposing mindset to them, you can apreciate how they would rather not have them in their group, and how they should be allowed to stop them comming if all they will do is oppose what is said.

Racial discrimination is diffrent. It is based not on what the person believes or thinks or does (which are things that to an extent people can control) but what a person is. Now there are some circumstances where this is obviously logical to have racial discrimination. For example you would want a Japanese man to play Kabuo in a play adaptation of "Snow Falling on Ceaders" or a Black man to play Tom from "To kill a mocking bird" etc. However there are very very few instances of this kind of nessecary discrimination.

Discrimination also exists on the grounds of ability. And that is logical. If someone cannot play the flute it is not discriminatory to keep them out of the flute section of the royal philoharmonic orchestra.

Discrimination is not always bad.

I believe when most people think of "discrimination," and its negative context, they are thinking of factors that do not inhibit (as opposed to impact) a person's ability to contribute to the group or organization in question.

For example with the Birmingham CU issue. This is an example of where people confuse racial and religious discrimination. Relgious groups/clubs/societies etc are basicly like any other group of like minded people. They come together because they are of a like mind. So you can understand that they would wish that if someone wanted to learn of their mindset and what its like, they are happy to let them become a member. However if someone has an opposing mindset to them, you can apreciate how they would rather not have them in their group, and how they should be allowed to stop them comming if all they will do is oppose what is said.

So, what you're saying is that I should be allowed to fire, or not to hire, Christians or Muslims or whatever for being Christian/Muslims/whatever? And that I should get money from the government to do so?

So, what you're saying is that I should be allowed to fire, or not to hire, Christians or Muslims or whatever for being Christian/Muslims/whatever?
It depends. You're allowed to fire someone if their particular religious attitude is preventing them from doing their job. For instance, that guy who spends all day handing out flyers for his Meditation class? No problem firing him. That receptionist who greets everyone with a "Death to Israel"? They're gone. The accountant who explains that God told her to allocate part of the company's budget to Church organisations? Axed.

You can't fire someone out of discrimination against their cultural labelling, but you can fire them if they consistently aren't doing their job in the way you want them to.

It depends. You're allowed to fire someone if their particular religious attitude is preventing them from doing their job. For instance, that guy who spends all day handing out flyers for his Meditation class? No problem firing him. That receptionist who greets everyone with a "Death to Israel"? They're gone. The accountant who explains that God told her to allocate part of the company's budget to Church organisations? Axed.

You can't fire someone out of discrimination against their cultural labelling, but you can fire them if they consistently aren't doing their job in the way you want them to.

Did I write something about incompetence? No. I just wrote about religious affiliation.

Did I write something about incompetence? No. I just wrote about religious affiliation.
If your religious affiliation results in incompentence in your work, you can be fired for it.

If your religious affiliation results in incompentence in your work, you can be fired for it.

Then you are not being fired on religious grounds, but on your competency. ;)

Then you are not being fired on religious grounds, but on your competency. ;)
Doesn't change the fact that you would have kept your job if you weren't of that religious mindset.

Doesn't change the fact that you would have kept your job if you weren't of that religious mindset.
not actually, I have found that people who are truely incompetent, tend to be that way in one area or another.

not actually, I have found that people who are truely incompetent, tend to be that way in one area or another.

Exactly, religion has nothing to do with really. If you are an inefficient worker... buh-bye.

So, what you're saying is that I should be allowed to fire, or not to hire, Christians or Muslims or whatever for being Christian/Muslims/whatever? And that I should get money from the government to do so?
No, that would be stupid. We're not talking about an employment situation. This is about membership in an organization. Should PETA be forced to allow members of the NRA into their organization? Mybe if enough NRA members join the PETA call letters can eventually be changed from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to People for the Eating of tasty Animals. :)

Doesn't change the fact that you would have kept your job if you weren't of that religious mindset.
So being fired for looking at porn during you worktime is a way of discriminating against sexual beings? I mean, you'd never have been tempted and would therefore have kept your job had you been asexual.

So being fired for looking at porn during you worktime is a way of discriminating against sexual beings? I mean, you'd never have been tempted and would therefore have kept your job had you been asexual.
In a sense. It is true that your employer is being discriminative against your sense of sexuality. That's no negative thing; if your libido is such that you need to spend working clock time looking up porn then it's harmful to his organisation. From the employer's point of view, not posessing that trait is a positive aspect, where posessing it is a negative one.

If it's sufficiently bad to have to fire you, isn't that discrimination?

No, that would be stupid. We're not talking about an employment situation. This is about membership in an organization. Should PETA be forced to allow members of the NRA into their organization? Mybe if enough NRA members join the PETA call letters can eventually be changed from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to People for the Eating of tasty Animals. :)

Well an organization can do whatever it wants as long as it's not government-supported. The CU that the original poster is talking about was not being forced to accept members it did not want. It just had funding withdrawn by the university as long as it continued to violate the rules set forth by the university for organizations accepting university funds.

Well an organization can do whatever it wants as long as it's not government-supported. The CU that the original poster is talking about was not being forced to accept members it did not want. It just had funding withdrawn by the university as long as it continued to violate the rules set forth by the university for organizations accepting university funds.
Hmmm....

Now that you put it that way you may be right. I'm not sure that any religious organization should be getting government funds. When I went to college there was a University Intra-Faith building for people of every faith and then there was a specific building just for Mormons and that always bothered me.

In a sense. It is true that your employer is being discriminative against your sense of sexuality. That's no negative thing; if your libido is such that you need to spend working clock time looking up porn then it's harmful to his organisation. From the employer's point of view, not posessing that trait is a positive aspect, where posessing it is a negative one.

If it's sufficiently bad to have to fire you, isn't that discrimination?
Hmm, I thought I had picked ridiculous enough an example to show you where you went wrong. Optimism sucks, I know.

Startover. The employer is not being discriminative against their sense of sexuality. They are not discriminating against a mindset.

They fire them because of failure to comply with their duties.
Discrimination of the mindset would be if they could somehow assess their employees' sex drives and automatically fire everyone above the limit of a set number.
They don't do that. They fire everyone who looks at porn while on the clock, be that because they cannot exercise self-restraint due to an overly high sex drive coupled with few willpower, because work is the only place their wife will not notice them doing it, because they try to be defiant, because they want to prove to their co-workes that they dare do it..you name it.

Discrimination means directing a certain negative action towards a group because members of that group having [trait X]. Employers don't fire because of traits, but because of actions leading to incompetence. As I've demonstrated above, the display of the same incompetence can be motivated by virtually any reason. Firing because of actions does not mean firing because of/ discriminating against attributes/mindsets/etc.

This question has come up as a result of the thread about Birmingham Christian Union. It is this. Discrimination does make sense with regard to certian issues. People here act like whenever the word "discrimination" is said with regard to any group, it is immidately racisim or something else rather horrible. But it isnt always.

For example with the Birmingham CU issue. This is an example of where people confuse racial and religious discrimination. Relgious groups/clubs/societies etc are basicly like any other group of like minded people. They come together because they are of a like mind. So you can understand that they would wish that if someone wanted to learn of their mindset and what its like, they are happy to let them become a member. However if someone has an opposing mindset to them, you can apreciate how they would rather not have them in their group, and how they should be allowed to stop them comming if all they will do is oppose what is said.

Racial discrimination is diffrent. It is based not on what the person believes or thinks or does (which are things that to an extent people can control) but what a person is. Now there are some circumstances where this is obviously logical to have racial discrimination. For example you would want a Japanese man to play Kabuo in a play adaptation of "Snow Falling on Ceaders" or a Black man to play Tom from "To kill a mocking bird" etc. However there are very very few instances of this kind of nessecary discrimination.

Discrimination also exists on the grounds of ability. And that is logical. If someone cannot play the flute it is not discriminatory to keep them out of the flute section of the royal philoharmonic orchestra.

Discrimination is not always bad.

Pure and simple answer to your question:-

The Birmingham University CU group (and indeed, Muslim Union group and any other kind of group that exists regarding certain beliefs) should be allowed to exclude anyone they fucking want from their meetings. Fine, dandy, do whatever the hell you want.

However:-

Student Unions are part funded by the Government, which is funded by every single inhabitant of the UK, and part funded by the Students of the University, who - unless Uni has changed in the 11 years since i left - are as racially, religiously, ideologically and any other -ally diverse as the rest of the country. Therefore, simple answer. No group of this nature should be funded in any way, shape or form by the Student Union. End of. They can hire facilities if they so desire, they can do whatever the hell they want. But the money of atheists, of muslims, of buddhists etc etc should not go to support them and their reductionist worldview, where there is no room for compromise. Someone on the other thread made the point that many diverse societies are present in the fabric of University of life, from Role-Playing geek Societies to Beer drinkers to Pot holers. This is true. But you join such groups because you have an INTEREST in them, not because you believe everyone who is not a pot-holer is going to burn in eternal fiery torment.