Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
A teacher who is transitioning F to M was fired by a school board because "his gender change from woman to man is not aligned with the teachings of the Catholic church or its values." And he's fighting back, using Alberta's human rights act. Going to be interesting seeing how this case ends, because he's fighting the Catholic church.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/02/11258766-cp.html
BTW, Alberta has been previously referred to as "Texas of the North" by someone here. I forget who, but she was spot on! So I'm surprised to see the amount of support from various Alberta groups this teacher is getting. I hope he wins.
Comments
I'm not defending the Catholic Church as such
but what I do have a problem with is the government or anyone else telling them or any other church that they must do this in violation of their own beliefs and doctrine. If they can do that to them they can do that to you me or anyone else and they will do so.
The article did say that
The article did say that discrimination was exempt in certain circumstances. I don't know Canadian law at all, here in the US the teacher wouldn't have a chance.
The one big thing though, is they did say that this Catholic school accepts public money, and public money can come with strings, not discriminating being a very big string in most cases. Knowing the church, I would expect that they would refuse the public money if it came down to that.
Hugs,
Kristy
They should refuse the public money
and should not be taking it in the first place.I am am not agreeing with their position but they do have the right to have that position as do you and I. It's a very dangerous precedent to set. When you are employed by a religious organization you know or should know in advance what their teachings are concerning any particular subject. If you can't abide by that then it is up to you to move to someplace else that is more in line with your beliefs. I liken it to the policy that is being promoted that requires pharmacists and doctors to hand out "morning after" pills or perform abortions even though such things violate their beliefs. Where does it end?
Here in the US, they should
Here in the US, they should absolutely not be getting any public money. (There are many that debate that though.)
I have no idea what he laws are in Canada, but it appears they are allowed to be given public money. To a point I agree with you about government staying out of a church's beliefs, but there are exceptions. Human Sacrifice for instance, would not be acceptable regardless of the beliefs of the religion.
There are other cases where I think the government does overstep its bounds, i.e. the Mormons and polygamy. Really what overriding reason can the government make in that case. I'm not Mormon, nor am I a polygamist, but I just don't undersand why thats the governments business.
The ethics of faith healing versus medicine is a much grayer area of course.
But, I think to a degree in this case, accept for the public money part of it, I do think that the curch should have a strong case. The teacher put himself into that position.
But likewise a person that choses to be a pharmacist, knows they will have to dispense meds that may be used for things that they do not approve. I don't think there are too many doctor's that are forced to perform abortions.
Kristy
Polygamy
The original interference with polygamy by the US government in Utah probably could not be justified by strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution. But that was a matter of practical politics. Utah wanted to be a state, the other states would not vote to offer statehood until Utah outlawed polygamy.
(Btw, it wasn't polygamy; technically, it was polygyny. Multiple wives, not multiple spouses.)
But the modern crackdown on polygamy involves small groups of people who practice child weddings. Girls as young as eleven or twelve are being forced into polygynous marriages. This is not allowed under many sorts of laws but it isn't so much a matter of polygamy as of child abuse by modern standards.
It's not the mainline Mormon church but small splinter groups that are involved. Child weddings are also practiced by other groups in the Carolinas, Oklahoma, Indiana and Ohio. Some of these belong to one or another of the Traveller subcultures. They've been doing this for hundreds of years and claim cultural justifications. But it's still child abuse by modern law and is prosecuted when the people are caught. Such cases are difficult to prosecute because both the splinter Mormon groups and the Travellers live in self-isolating enclaves where witnesses who will come forward are hard to find.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
That's not how that works...
The Catholic schools are government run. If they stopped accepting the money than the schools would stop existing. That's how it is. I don't know which country you're from, but assuming you're from the US, the school system is much different. These are public schools with a religious twist, you do not have to pay a fee to attend. A Muslim could attend, just as an Anti-Theist could attend, just as a Buddhist could attend, and just as a Jew could attend. If the school ever tried to turn *anyone* away for being a different religion the government would step in and prevent it, this is the exact same thing. The only difference is that this concerns gender and sexuality, which is the biggest "No, no" in the catholic religion. The teacher has the right to teach in this school board just as he has a right to teach in any other school board regardless of sexuality or gender. So long as the Catholic School Board is a public institution (not a private one like in the US) they have to listen to the government and abide by all of their non-discrimination rules.
I think you're looking at this wrong. You look at it as government interference in religion but it's really government intervention in a public school system. The government will not tell you, you cannot be gay or trans gendered, and it will not tell you which religion you're allowed to be. It's certainly not trying to say that all religions must accept every person in to their churches, despite their beliefs, due to equality laws. It's simply saying "this is a public institution and you're not allowed to discriminate in a public institution."
That's a horse of a different color as they say
and sheds a whole new light on things. While this particular instance is not govt. interference into religion I have heard such talk on occasion and it makes me very nervous. Why the Catholics are involved in a public school board is beyond me. That is not something I like any more than the other end of things. Personally I'd like to see the public school system go away as it provides a lousy education for the most part and spends more time doing things other than educating the children but that's another argument for another day. Thanks for clearing that up.
Historically
When Canada was mostly French, the Catholic Church operated most of the schools as a matter of course. When the British took over, things continued as they were in many places and accommodations were reached. It's a system that looks peculiar to Americans but works because of constant adjustment to public needs. This case is just such an adjustment.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Problem is
The Catholic church runs the public schools in much of Canada. It, or one of its subdivisions, has a government contract to run the school system in that area and the province has a law forbidding just such discrimination. Running the school is not a religious activity of the church, it is a secular one that happens to be run by a church. As such, the church has no right to fall back on religion as a defense for illegal discrimination. They have, in effect, agreed to abide by provincial employment law by continuing to operate the schools under contract with subsidies from the province.
If the teacher had been involved with the few religion classes taught in the schools, it would be different. That's a protected area under free exercise of religion and churches are allowed to discriminate there. But this was teaching general education classes in a school paid for in part by the province. Not a protected part of freedom of worship, the church is simply a subcontractor working for the government here.
This will go to the courts, and it probably should. Both national and provincial laws are involved and decisions by Canada's highest courts. Once this is clarified in Alberta, and it's almost certain to go against the church, it will be less of a problem in other jurisdictions. Canada is moving more quickly on this topic than the US is, no real surprise, I suppose.
In both countries, the sticking points are often justified by religion. The idea that gender is a religious topic is very peculiar, though, at least to me. It seems to me to be a confusion between the cultural aspects of organized religion and the spiritual aspects of personal faith.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Can I speak calmly about religious bigotry?
I don't know if I can because my whole life and being has been centered around my core value that there is a creator. For much of my life, I have been decieved into believing that those who proclaim to know most loudly, are the rightful authorities. Now I am wondering if most of this authoritative talk is simply self aggrandizement. Perhaps they are simply whistling in the dark and doing their best to convince themselves that the vastness of the universe can be explained and understood.
Thus, this using the cloak of principled religion to reject those who somehow tap into the inner most fears of those who loudly boast that they some how have a good bead on understanding God should not be surprising. I think that their inner fears may be so far buried in denial that nothing short of staring into the literal face of God will shake them.
I've been out long enough now to have learned to be extremely thankful for those few who will hang around once they know. Those who disappear, well, it is about their own fears and not about us. I had so hoped it would be about ME. :) That would meet my need for attention, and then there would be something that "I" could fix to ease their fears.
Do we put them in touch with something within them that frightens them and they see as a weakness? Perhaps the fear and loathing of T folk is something that goes on in the primitive brain and has more to do with procreation than morality?
My own religious beliefs are in the crock pot on the back of the counter while I wait for that force in the cosmos to still my panting heart. I ask myself, "why is it that those whose mottoes include the loving of one another seem to be able to set that more aside so easily"? I haven't the slightest clue.
Will that TG teacher finally get justice? Will it happen that one day that the compulsion that propels our life changes be understood. There is a well known sect of a middle eastern religion that says people like us are in pain and must change and it is OK. A very well known leader of that religious sect even wrote a rule about it. Still, the people do not follow the law of their leader so easily.
I can only pray that it will be better for those who come after us.
Khadija