Religion targets ‘immoral’ gays
Christian lobbyists have taken aim at homosexuality, anti-discrimination laws and any proposed charter of rights in early submissions to a federal inquiry into Australia’s freedom of religion.
Sydney-based ministry FamilyVoice Australia claimed Christians were not currently free to practise their beliefs due to legal restrictions and cited a Tribunal decision against Wesley Mission for refusing homosexual couples as foster carers.
Recognition of freedom of religion implies recognition that some faith communities may explicitly reject some sexual behaviour as immoral, it wrote, objecting to the Human Rights Commission’s discussion paper on sexual diversity and religious freedom.
The questions assume a stance in favour of the view that all varieties of sexuality are morally equivalent and valid expressions of human nature. This view is not shared by the majority of world religions or of religious believers.
The Anglican Church joined other Christian lobbyists in defending the right to sack employees for not adhering to religious tenets, including non-religious positions in schools.
For Christian organisations, all action is done -˜to the glory of God’. This makes it impossible to distinguish between specifically religious activity and other activities, the Anglican submission said.
Recent job advertisements for a network manager at a Queensland Christian school seen by Sydney Star Observer required applicants be a committed Christian even though such a requirement is illegal under Queensland anti-discrimination law because the job does not involve religion.
The Anglican submission called for a compromise where religious organisations be given full exemption from anti-discrimination employment law provided it is used in good faith, is not arbitrary, and be consistently applied.
However, Tasmanian Anti-Discimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt objected strongly to the current religious exemptions in her state, saying they do not conflict with freedom of religion.
It is difficult to see how holding the same religious belief as a school should be required to teach Maths, English or History, for example.
If it is a matter of a religious organisation providing services, education or employment, the question of a person’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. There is no reason to question what a person’s sexuality is if they are applying for a job, are a client or a customer.
She recommended government grants and funding for services be tied to religious organisations complying with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Faith communities can be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities by treating them with respect and in the same way as everyone else. In this regard, education and dialogue between different groups is important and [I] strongly support such initiatives.
: The inquiry will accept submissions until 31 January. More information can be found at the
Commission website www.humanrights.gov.au.
Can we just all live together and love another, the church should just accept people for who they are in the 21st century!! Remember not all churches or insitutions do this.
oh, let the women have their own gym…next you’ll be saying that women’s only spaces at Mardi Gras parties are discriminatory, AMP.
Oh let the big fat lardy-arsed umpalumpa wimmin have their own gym space, they don’t want men seeing them like that….next thing you’ll be saying the wimmin’s only space at Mardi Gras parties is discriminatory, AMP.
Thanks for your answer Andrew M. Potts, even though I disagree with you. I think that if a business is built on a certain model, and the Fernwood model is built around providing a women only environment, then the business can do what it bloodywell likes when it comes to who it employs and who can and can’t be a member.
I think when it comes to women’s only gyms the customers are more concerned about the gender of their fellow customers, than the staff who work there. Personally, no I don’t think Fernwood should be allowed to discriminate.
The Exclusive Bretheren hold the Bible as their sole authority in regard to matters of doctrine and practice. Does that make them, or the bible homophobic? In fact, if the bible is the word of God, then God is homophobic.
But we are digressing. I want an answer to the question I posted at 9:57 this morning.
One of the most rabidly homophobic churches, the Exclusive Brethren, receive more that $10 million per year in federal government funding. Subsidies from the Rees government to their NSW schools will exceed $1.8 million. Over the next four year funding period from 2009 to 2013, total funding will exceed $50 million. EB election advertisements declared that LGBT human rights will destroy society. The Brethren has tax exempt status as a religious organisation despite their intense political activity. EB exists to spread hate and lies about glbqti and to campaign against us.
But as Gary Burns said, not much point moaning in a newspaper column or forum, someone needs to grow some balls.
Should a women’s only gymnasium, such as Fernwood, be forced to comply with equal employment opportunity legislation and hence employ men as gym instructors to assist the female customers who are after a women-only gymnasium environment?
Why doesn’t Andrew.M.Potts lobby the legislator over the unfair treatment by catholic organisations against those of a homosexuality characteristic instead of whining on a forum built on annonymous opinion not in a position to do anything about it.
It seems to me as a lay person reading all of this there is a lot of blame & claim on this forum instead of people having the courage to go out and do something about it.
If you want to bring about change you have to go out and fight for it.
As Bette Davis said, “NO GUTS NO GLORY”.
Hi James, what about gay Catholics? Why should they be barred from employment within their faith communities? They do exist- in fact there are gay Christians representing every denomination in Australia.
How does a person’s sexuality preclude them from working as a maths or science or geography teacher at a religious school provided they are prepared to teach that schools curriculum?
And as previously mentioned, religious groups own banks, hospitals, retirement homes, insurance companies, superannuation funds, dry cleaning companies… the list goes on.
How does a person’s sexuality preclude them from working in any of these jobs just because the business is owned by a religious organisation.
The fact is that many of these organisations do hire gay staff when they need their skills, but are able to sack them on a whim whenever they feel like it or when find someone else they like better who can do the job.
Oliver – if my parents were to have sent me to a “Gay run school” then I think it’s fair to say that they would expect that I was receiving an education that was in line with the ethos of that school. And fair enough too.
Churches get enough Government funding. They dont deserve any at all. They love advertising themselves as these “Good Christians” and “Good Samaritans” Jesus loved people unconditionally, he never excluded anybody. My being gay is not being an organisation, a corporation or a community in it self but simply a sexual preference. I am no different physically in appearance to any other Man. Cheers.
Thanks James. I went to a Catholic School, not by choice of my own and had to put up with all their brainwashing for 12 years of my life. I dont practice their ethics in my daily life. James imagine if you were brought up in a Gay run school? What do you say about that?
Chris – thanks for your usual compliments.
My point is that where an organisation has a particular ethos, belief or philosophy that forms part of the reason for the existence of that organisation, then that organisation should be able to exclude people from employment where the particular role has an impact on the communication of that ethos.
For example, if a Catholic school is recruiting for a religion teacher, then I think it’s within the rights of the school to require that applicant to be aligned with the ethos and beliefs of the school. If that means that Muslims, homosexuals and Scientologists need not apply then fair enough. If a gay organisation is recruiting for a public relations officer or an education campaigner for example, then it’s within their rights to require the appplicant to be aligned with the beliefs and ethos of the gay organisation. If that means that Muslims, Catholics and Scientologists need not apply then fair enough.
Remember, we’re not talking about generic roles in generic companies here; eg. a train driver for city rail, a lawyer for a law firm . Then it certainly shouldn’t matter if you are Catholic, gay, etc.
James….we all know your ‘role’ here other than that of being
no 1 pest ( with Oliver a close no 2) is to push the views of the anti gay churches.
James 2 wrongs do not make a right. It would be wrong and unjust of a gay and lesbian organisation to excude a heterosexual from employment just as it is wrong and unjust for religious organisations to do the same to non heterosexual people.
and yes i couldn’t agree more with Phil Scott re tax. Why in this day and age should ‘religious organisations be excempt from tax???? It is crazy and unjust… TAX THE CHURCHES !!!!( and hit them for back taxes as well )
Geez. Let’s all invent a religion that commands that all old world Christians should be the staple nutritional intake of savage lions, and then complain that the continued existence of these annoying people is an infringement on our right to practice that religion.
If Jesus were alive, he’d say ‘Who the **** are these people!”
Fine James, then you’ll join the fight to have that right extended to atheists and agnostic organisations so they can refuse theists employment as well?
With religious schools where does it stop? Should catholic schools be allowed to exclude people who’ve remarried without the church’s permission?
Should christian schools be allowed to exclude people who are in live in relationships with a person they’re not married to?
Should muslim schools be allowed to exclude teachers who drink alcohol or consume pork?
So long as teachers at religious schools are prepared to keep their private lives private there should be no grounds to exclude them from employment.
The vast majority of private schools in Australia are run by churches. The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private schools are not homophobes. This privilege (and it is a privilege- rights are something that EVERYONE can exercise) is solely about religious leaders being able to quarantine their communities from people they want treated as pariahs.
If a person is not breaking any law then employers should have no scope to exclude them or interfere in their lives in any other way.
A religous school should definitely be able to exclude whoever it wants from employment if the potential employee’s lifestyle, personal belief’s, etc don’t align with the ethos of the school.
Likewise, a gay organisation should definitely be able to exclude whoever it wants from employment if the potential employee’s lifestyle, personal belief’s, etc don’t align with the ethos of the organisation.
Anyway, that’s my view.
Brendan, You put into words what I was thinking and its so true.
The intolerable are like the few weeds sitting in your garden patch.
Instead crying like a bunch of Bette-Davis’s throwing a tantrum perhaps you could all go out and weed your gardens.
You will feel a lot better afterwards.
My mummy always said,
“Sun on your face is good for you”.
James, we’re talking about Equal Employment Opportunity. It’s about doing what is right and giving people an honest fair go.
If religious schools want to exclude potential employees on the basis of faith or sexuality — even when, most of the time, those things have nothing to do with ability to do the job well — and gratuitously infringe upon the private lives of ostensibly law-abiding adults, then let them ALSO exclude THEMSELVES from receiving ANY funding from the public purse. And like Phil says, let them ALSO start paying their fair share of tax.
One offensive double standard here is that we don’t hear of religious schools querying the sexual practices or specific beliefs of their heterosexual applicants to ascertain if they meet the moral litmus test. There is a misguided assumption put about by Christianity that if one calls oneself a Christian, then one is automagically morally acceptable. This is a deeply ingrained religious fallacy. Remember evangelical pastor and married father Ted Haggard was once considered a fine upstanding Christian… until it was revealed he had sex with men and smoked crystal meth ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/lkl.ted.haggard/ ). “You know what … you can become a man of God, and you can have a little bit of fun on the side”, he said.
When it comes to people vilifying someone and using God or Jesus to scare them, its gone beyond the normal freedom of speech boundaries.
It’s not about voicing an opinion, it’s about exemption from legislation. As long as there are exceptions to the rule of anti-discrimination, homophobia will continue to have a de facto green light. Any officially sanctioned discrimination leads in the end to homophobic violence.
Churches and religious organisations should be taxed as well. At the highest rate. As Richard Dawkins writes, they have fooled the rest of society into thinking they have a special status which they actually don’t deserve.
James, the problem is who gets to decide the definition of a “committed christian”- religious leaders should not be able to punish dissenting members of their denominations straight or gay for having different views by denying them employment within their faith community.
I don’t think gay organisations should be allowed to bar heterosexuals from working for them provided those heterosexuals are willing to work for the goals and within the guidelines of those organisations in that work.
The same goes for gay people, non-christians and dissenting christians in businesses owned by religious groups. The Catholic Church owns banks, insurance companies, retirement homes, hospitals- even a dry cleaning company- why should they be allowed to deny employment to gay people, non Catholics or non-orthodox Catholics when the job description involves no delivery of religious services?
These exemptions amount to a form of segregation and encourages the fragmentation of our society and segregation is always wrong.
Oliver – should people have a different level of freedom when it comes to voicing their opinion? I thought part of being gay was adhering to the principles of tolerance, understanding, inclusiveness, freedom, etc. I mean, that’s what the gay community promotes itself as wanting. So if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for everyone I would have thought.
Christians are far too free when they voice their opinions. They make me sick!!!
What the hell’s wrong with a Queensland Christian school requiring a potential staff member to be a committed christian? Likewise, what the hell’s wrong with a gay organisation requiring a potential employee to be gay? Both examples seem logical to me. All this inclusive nonsense is out of control. What’s next; some bloke whinging cause he’s not allowed in the girl’s toilets.
Christ, this is rich. Anti-discrimination doesn’t go one way! It either applies across the board or it doesn’t apply at all. Religious groups claim GLBT people want special treatment (we don’t, just equal treatment), but they are the ones who expect to be exempted from basic human rights legislation in the name of a divine power whose existence no human being has ever proven! The situation is farcical.
I might as well lobby for exemption from paying bus fares because of the invisible purple rabbit on my shoulder. I believe in the rabbit, damn it!
News Ltd is now reporting that the deadline for submissions has been extended to February 28th.
For more information go to- http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/index.html