Pot calling Kettle black!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to follow the laws .

Technically, that is arguable, but that wasn't really my point. Don't you ever question laws? Assuming that a job candidate meets the requirements to work (and be taxed) in that country, why should the state dictate who can and cannot be hired? Is that more productive? Does it ease conflict along racial or religious or gender lines? Experience in the U.S. says no.

Let us suppose that you had a school based upon some particular belief structure (even if it is simply secular). Parents send their children to your school because they like the curriculum. Suddenly, some diametrically opposed applicant shows up. Perhaps they are qualified, or perhaps they are not.
What do you do? If you hire this person, how do you explain it to your students' parents?

[AVGWarhawk]

School, business or whatever one could call it, is she the most qualified applicant? If not, then the position goes to the person that is the most qualified. What, is the affirmative action now applying to Muslims?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to fellow the laws .

When they hire models that are great looking over those that are ugly, is it not along the same lines? They are simply discriminating based on looks in this case instead of religion. Get used to it, or you will be buying your bar soap from ugly fat woman commercials.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, it is like the man who sued Hooters because, well , the name of the restaurant is after all Hooters and they did not hire men. If I go to Hooters I want to see, well, hooters. Not some guy named Biff.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Yes, it is like the man who sued Hooters because, well , the name of the restaurant is after all Hooters and they did not hire men. If I go to Hooters I want to see, well, hooters. Not some guy named Biff.

HEY MCFLY!! YOU READY TO ORDER?!

[GoldenRivet]

as someone who understands religion based schooling pretty well, i would say that since their curriculum is "faith based" it is their responsibility and their right to hire individuals who they feel would best support the curriculum.

If for example a flight instructor applied for a position at my flight school and due to religious reasons he insists that airplanes fly because of some invisible God powered magic... i would be compelled NOT to hire him because it does not support the standard curriculum for my school.

I seriously doubt a Muslim faith based school would hire a Christian teacher... perhaps a christian receptionist or janitorial staff... but NOT a teacher.

This lady is just trying to stir the pot.

Yea... see ... thats what happens when you appoach the subject with the view point that the buisness are beholding to the goverment and not the other way around.

Well perhaps you had better rip up your constitution , have a nice little revolution and draw up a new constitution then .

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well perhaps you had better rip up your constitution , have a nice little revolution and draw up a new constitution then .

The consitution specifically states that goverment should not intervene in private buisness.

Its the politicos tearing up the constitution not its citizens. Unfortunatly a large part of the population doesent realize this.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

as someone who understands religion based schooling pretty well, i would say that since their curriculum is "faith based" it is their responsibility and their right to hire individuals who they feel would best support the curriculum.

If for example a flight instructor applied for a position at my flight school and due to religious reasons he insists that airplanes fly because of some invisible God powered magic... i would be compelled NOT to hire him because it does not support the standard curriculum for my school.

I seriously doubt a Muslim faith based school would hire a Christian teacher... perhaps a christian receptionist or janitorial staff... but NOT a teacher.

This lady is just trying to stir the pot.

GR, I can tell you I have NO experience with 'faith based' education. That being said, again tell my how her personal faith should matter if she is teaching Math? Will 1+1=3 if she is wearing a head scarf? If it does to her then she can be rejected because she is incompetent not because she is Muslim. I assume she felt SHE had no problem with the school being Christian and so as long as she didn't quote the Koran during a algebra exam I don't know why anyone would have a problem.

Now if the real problem is the parents and the adminstrators just don't want the students exposed to someone who looks different, dresses different, worships different......

Well, that's a shame.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

as long as she didn't quote the Koran during a algebra exam

There is the problem exactly... you reached it through your own deductive reasoning - you're lucky - most folks dont have this ability

this is the problem exactly.

its NOT that her faith will change the outcome of a math problem... parents enroll their children into faith based campuses because they want their children to grow up in a Christian community, honoring christian values etc etc. much for the same reason that Muslims enroll their children into muslim schools, and Nazis enroll their children into Hitler Youth camps etc etc

nothing necessarily wrong with Muslim values i dont guess - but if a parent wants to spend several thousand dollars funding a private education for their own children so that they can grow up surrounded by members of the community which share the same ideals as the family does - so be it... they dont want this educator spouting off about how the one true God is Allah... or Bathsheba or Buda or the flying spaghetti monster etc etc

and there is the reason she was rejected for the job.

if i want my children to grow up in an environment which reinforces the ideals of my familiy or my familie's scocial circle, i dont want anyone who is likley to try and turn my children away from those values being placed in charge of even one small segment of their overall education.

sounds closed minded perhaps - but children have been raised this way since the first birth on this planet.

might this woman teach math - without bias toward religion one way or another?

maybe

is the school willing to bet tuition money on it?

no

[Max2147]

I go to a Christian university, and my school actively seeks professors of other faiths. They believe that a broader perspective helps the Christian students understand their faith better, and it makes non-Christian students (like me) feel more comfortable. I think they're exactly right.

If all you hear in life is a repetition of your own views, you learn nothing. You need to hear a variety of voices to better understand your own views.

Did this school have a right to reject this woman? Absolutely. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. The school is harming themselves and their students.

And be careful with Constitutional arguments on this one, since Australia's Constitution isn't the same as the American one.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Technically, that is arguable, but that wasn't really my point. Don't you ever question laws? Assuming that a job candidate meets the requirements to work (and be taxed) in that country, why should the state dictate who can and cannot be hired? Is that more productive? Does it ease conflict along racial or religious or gender lines? Experience in the U.S. says no.

Let us suppose that you had a school based upon some particular belief structure (even if it is simply secular). Parents send their children to your school because they like the curriculum. Suddenly, some diametrically opposed applicant shows up. Perhaps they are qualified, or perhaps they are not.
What do you do? If you hire this person, how do you explain it to your students' parents?

So equality of opportunity for ALL is actually a bad idea? How did that happen? Maybe I'm just a naive optimist, but I do like to think things are a little better between the races, genders, and religions than they were when my folks were kids. They thought so. I do think the 'state'(meaning us) helped with that.

As a principal of whatever school I would tell the parents the same thing-

"Mr/Ms was the best qualified candidate in our judgement to teach these courses."

Really, what else would you say?

[AVGWarhawk]

Let me back peddle if I may. Since the school is considered a business in this thread, hiring the women is potential to losing customers(students). This is a paying school. Parents send the kids there for a particular education and foundation of the Christian faith. The did not pay good hard cash to have a Muslim teach their children. So having the potentional to lose customers over this she was not hired.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

So equality of opportunity for ALL is actually a bad idea? How did that happen?

No, I think it's a great idea. So is Communism. Neither can exist, though. The closest you can ever get to equal opportunity is maximization of individual freedoms. The second the state steps in and says you must or must not hire/train/educate/trade with/etc... this person, equality of opportunity gives way to equality of outcome.

Maybe I'm just a naive optimist, but I do like to think things are a little better between the races, genders, and religions than they were when my folks were kids. They thought so. I do think the 'state'(meaning us) helped with that.

That's possible, and is a difficult point to argue either way. The one thing I will give the state credit for is preventing the state from discriminating, more or less. In that way, the state expanded individual freedoms.

As a principal of whatever school I would tell the parents the same thing-
"Mr/Ms was the best qualified candidate in our judgement to teach these courses."
Really, what else would you say?

You're looking at it backwards. Demand, and therefore capital, flows from the consumer. A business must meet consumer expectations if it is to continue. As a private school, a Catholic school is vulnerable to competition, whether it recieves state funding or not. If it fails to satisfy the consumers, it ceases to exsist.
You seem to have a top-down perspective, in which what seems to be the most efficient choice is apparent. It would seem more "fair" to hire this teacher, and should she indeed prove to be the most qualified, she would appear to be the wisest choice. Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. In this particular instance, selecting a Muslim teacher would almost certainly cause drastic repurcussions amongst the school's consumer base, resulting in the loss of customers. Consider the nature of religion, and tell me that parents would not withdraw their children over such a slight.

The alternative is to mandate hiring policies and curricula in all schools. This, though, creates an even worse set of harms. Whereas fallacious religious or personal convictions about school selection may harm some students, a fallacious state policy on education harms all students and their parents have no choice in where they are schooled, no escape.
The U.S. itself is a shining example of the failure of state-monopolized education, for reasons I am sure you are quite familiar with.

In this case, or in any other, the goal should be to provide individuals with the freedom to choose, (even if they choose poorly) whilst preserving the individual rights of others. That means choice in employees, wages, consumer demographics, etc.. for all industries. That results in choice for consumers and employees.
It can be argued that that business can also create a monopoly, but to give power to the state is to simply skip everything and willingly create a monopoly right away. Contrary to your assessment, the state is not us. You don't have a vote, and though you technically have a voice, it is very, very faint. In a best-case scenario, you are subject to the tyranny of the masses, and in the worst case you just get tyranny.

Never confuse Equality of Opportunity with Equality of Outcome.