Govt. adopts anti-discrimination law

"[...] the conduct of priests and religious officials will not be considered discrimination if it is legally in keeping with church doctrine, faith or the purpose of a church or religious community."

Hmm...?

This allows all religious communities to continue their discrimination -especially that which takes place against women. It allows the existence of institutions in society that accept discrimination and consider discrimination belonging to their canon of faith.

There are still some last fortresses of men. Religious communities have the thickest and highest built walls. And the deepest moats.

I'm all for the separation of religion and state. But that separation cuts both ways in a free and democratic society.

The choice to be or not to be a member of a religious community is a private and voluntary matter. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means that the state has no legitimate right to interfere in matters of religious belief and practice, unless there are exceptionally serious and compelling reasons for doing so.

Such compelling reasons rarely arise. For instance, the state does have the right and the duty to intervene to stop a religious group from engaging in, or promoting acts such as human sacrifices, the burning of witches, or the stoning of adulterers. But these are extreme and exceptional examples.

Under most circumstances, religious freedom and separation of church and state means that the state does not have the right to intervene. The state should not be able to dictate to religious groups concerning the group's membership, beliefs, ritual practices and internal governance.

Freedom of speech and religion means that the state should not have the right to use anti-discrimination laws as a way to compel a religious group to accept women or homosexuals as priests, if that group's beliefs prohibit it. A free and democratic state also cannot use such laws as a means to force monks to admit women into men's monasteries. Nor should the state be able to restrain religious groups from speaking out openly about their faith's internal beliefs and norms of behavior (e.g. about whether homosexual acts, or sexual acts outside of marriage are, or are not sinful).

No one is obliged to attend a church, mosque or synagogue, or to believe in sin, or in heaven or hell. But those who choose to follow the teachings of their religion should not be interfered with by the secular state, unless there is an exceptionally compelling reason to do so.

There are still some last fortresses of men. Religious communities have the thickest and highest built walls. And the deepest moats.
(Olli, 13 March 2009 12:05)

Indeed, I would like to visit Chilandariou/Hilandar with my family.
To bad, I cannot.
And Greece is in EU. What a pity, this still can happen!

"[...] the conduct of priests and religious officials will not be considered discrimination if it is legally in keeping with church doctrine, faith or the purpose of a church or religious community."

Hmm...?

This allows all religious communities to continue their discrimination -especially that which takes place against women. It allows the existence of institutions in society that accept discrimination and consider discrimination belonging to their canon of faith.

There are still some last fortresses of men. Religious communities have the thickest and highest built walls. And the deepest moats.

I'm all for the separation of religion and state. But that separation cuts both ways in a free and democratic society.

The choice to be or not to be a member of a religious community is a private and voluntary matter. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means that the state has no legitimate right to interfere in matters of religious belief and practice, unless there are exceptionally serious and compelling reasons for doing so.

Such compelling reasons rarely arise. For instance, the state does have the right and the duty to intervene to stop a religious group from engaging in, or promoting acts such as human sacrifices, the burning of witches, or the stoning of adulterers. But these are extreme and exceptional examples.

Under most circumstances, religious freedom and separation of church and state means that the state does not have the right to intervene. The state should not be able to dictate to religious groups concerning the group's membership, beliefs, ritual practices and internal governance.

Freedom of speech and religion means that the state should not have the right to use anti-discrimination laws as a way to compel a religious group to accept women or homosexuals as priests, if that group's beliefs prohibit it. A free and democratic state also cannot use such laws as a means to force monks to admit women into men's monasteries. Nor should the state be able to restrain religious groups from speaking out openly about their faith's internal beliefs and norms of behavior (e.g. about whether homosexual acts, or sexual acts outside of marriage are, or are not sinful).

No one is obliged to attend a church, mosque or synagogue, or to believe in sin, or in heaven or hell. But those who choose to follow the teachings of their religion should not be interfered with by the secular state, unless there is an exceptionally compelling reason to do so.

There are still some last fortresses of men. Religious communities have the thickest and highest built walls. And the deepest moats.
(Olli, 13 March 2009 12:05)

Indeed, I would like to visit Chilandariou/Hilandar with my family.
To bad, I cannot.
And Greece is in EU. What a pity, this still can happen!