There should be no need to change any legislation on this issue. The fact that anyone who is not Christian would want to work in a Christian school defies all belief. Where is the integrity of someone who openly opposes Christian values and then wants to work in a Christian school?

If, for example, you are not heterosexual why would you want to partake in a process of education whose aim is quite clearly to oppose anything other than heterosexuality? Why would you want to help such a bigoted organisation flourish? How serious are you about your own values when you are prepared to sell out just for a job? What does that say about you as a person?

Is it some game like the 'wedding cake' issue in Ireland where you just want to have something because you can? Why would you want to give your bakery business to a bigot? Why would you want to help educate children who are going to grow up to be bigots against those who are not heterosexual?

Applying for a job in a Christian school when you are bitterly opposed to Christian values is an act of cowardice. It shows a complete inability to stand up for one's principles in the face of bigotry. Either you get a job somewhere else(any job) or you stop complaining about discrimination. Discrimination does not exist until someone applies for a job and so no laws need to be changed. Discrimination is not a theory but a reality and if there is no good reason why you would want to work in a Christian school then there is no need to draft laws to protect you from discrimination.

This is just another example of how some minorities disrupt society for no good reason other than attention seeking and bullying. It is irrational for them to work in Christian schools but they are determined to waste politicians' time and taxpayers money in the pursuit of attention.

How do the normal citizens of this crazy place called Australia, survive squeezed between left and right dystopian extremes.
Aldous Huxley *a brave new world* should be mandatory reading, along with George Orwells *1984*..

I'm appalled watching on a daily basis, beautiful Victoria converting itself into "Ratbag"!

Phanto, I feel you didn't use the word " bigot" enough in your rant.
If you are going to express your intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your own beliefs I suggest you put more emphasis into the process.
As it is, you only come across as very intolerant as opposed to being a total bigot yourself.

To be fair, this is where separating church and state was always going to go. Hopefully, younger christians will learn from the errors of secularism going forward, and realise that the state is best as the executive arm of the church.

When an article starts with "radical leftist Labor government of Dan Andrews" you know you're going to read some further silly things.

Is it just homosexuals you're worried about or anyone not conforming to your "religious test"?

what exactly are your religious convictions and what amount of religious freedom should religious groups actually have? Should religions that believe a man can have many wives be allowed to practices it?

Do religious schools apply the same religious test to their students?

By the middle part we can see that you've really worked yourself up and are throwing out silly statements in every sentence. Most likely paused to wipe your mouth at this stage. just how did you get to any group bring force to employ people. Do you really understand the difference between forced and unable to discriminate?

You then finish off with a quote from Kevin, which would leave any thinking person scratching their heads. Do you support the idea that schools should be free to teach their own syllabus? Young earth creationist are you?

In a secular country like Australia all parties must have equal treatment under the law and religious groups should be no exception.

In my view if an employer wants special permission to discriminate in a way that other employers are not permitted to (i.e. on the basis of religion, race, gender, marital status or sexuality), then at the they should be free to do so on one condition: that they receive not one cent of government funding.

The following quote from the author is pure paranoia:

"Indeed, will Andrews force all Islamic schools and madrassas to provide non-halal foods and alcohol for their non-Muslim staff and employees? Surely to insist that an infidel be forced to eat only Islamic-approved food is the height of discrimination and inequality, right Dan? We sure don't want that happening."

If an islamic school chooses to only serve halal food in their cafeteria, or requires staff to not bring pork to school, then that's not discrimination. It becomes discrimination when the school wants to sack a staff member who chooses to eat pork in their own private time.

Similarly, if a catholic school wants it's teachers to not discuss contraception with students, then that's not discrimination. It becomes discrimination when they want to sack the teacher for using contraception in their private life.

Let's go back to the beginning: the dilemma is that if, hypothetically, Christian or Muslim organisations are forced to employ homosexuals somehow, then homosexual organisations should be forced to employ Christians or Muslims. [For homosexuals, read also: feminists, atheists, Marxists, etc.]

In the interests of diversity and inclusiveness, what would be wrong with that ? Admittedly, it may lead to indecision about who throws whom off tall buildings, or whether or not both Christ and Muhammad, by virtue of having no children or heirs, were actually homosexuals, or perhaps didn't even exist. No, that might offend Christians, Muslims AND homosexuals.

Christian and Muslim schools exist legally, and have some autonomy, and thereby are free to teach their beliefs to children who enrol, AND to require teachers to teach those beliefs. I don't know if those teachers have enough autonomy to teach, say, something similar to what is taught in non-religious schools, even if it conflicts with the school's teachings.

If so, perhaps a homosexual teacher in, say, a Muslim school would have the freedom to teach that it is not okay to throw homosexuals off tall buildings, or for feminist teachers to teach that it is not okay to burn young girls who refuse to be sex slaves in cages. Or, I suppose, for an atheist teacher to instruct his pupils to question whether or not there is a god, or gods, at all. And if they were sacked for doing so, they could have a case against wrongful dismissal.

And of course, it should be mandatory for homosexual, transgender, etc. x 57, feminist and atheist organisations to employ priests, parsons and imams on the same terms. After all, discrimination is so hurtful.

OR we could let sleeping dogs lie. Each to his own. Let a hundred weeds contend.

Joe

Has anyone actually read the Act 2010 s 82 and the amendments?
It means a religious school can't refuse the fire-brigade sending lesbian Buddhist Canadians to rescue the Holy Relic Skinhead from a burning Dogma Kennel. Religion of the school is absolutely protected - you knew that.

And what about intolerant statist bigotry? What are we doing about that? Why should people have the blind worship of the state shoved down their throats?

And why not make *all* discrimination illegal? Better still, a criminal offence?

So Bill Muehlenberg wants to retain the rights of bigots to be bigots.

What a completely inane argument he makes. Although to be fair to Mr. Meuhlenberg, anyone who thinks that Cory Bernardi's views are "backed by the facts" has clearly got a problem separating fiction from reality.

Kevin Donnelly is just as bad.

"Parents seeking a religious education for their children have every right to expect that the teachers employed, the curriculum, and the broader school environment accord with the moral and ethical teachings of their particular faith."

In fact parents have no such right, as that would be discriminatory. They have every right to choose a school that suits their way of thinking and to remove their children from schools if they don't like its ethos. They have no right to dictate the legal out of school activities of teachers.

I am reminded amongst all this hoopla the evidence being given to the Child Abuse Royal Commission where it appears that religious organisations did indeed have homosexuals teaching in their schools and when these individuals abused children in their care, the religious authorities hushed it up.

It is almost as if there is some sort of reality disconnect going on here.

It's strange that an atheist, Marxist government like the goons in Victoria would bother themselves with religion. Control and hatred, I suppose. Even the South Australia Marxist government doesn't bother with such things.The Catholic college where my wife finished her working life didn't query her non-Catholisicm or that of any other teachers. The Muslim parents in the area, who sent their kids there did so for education superior to the state schools around them. The Muslim kids went along to the rare masses read during the rare visits from a bishop, and they were probably as bored as the Catholic, Protestant and atheist students and teachers were. What are these atheists scared of?

Probably the grass won't look different when an atheist mows it. Agnostic plumbers can't change the religious alignment of water pipes.
please read the actual law that is being proposed.

Hi Joe, Probably OK, if they're also homosexual Christians or Muslims , Marxists, whatever?

Hi ttbn, Suggest you read me below in sex(uality) and the city. Has a message almost exclusively aimed at you and your reasonable concerns!
Cheers, Alan B.

How else can secularist dumb down those who are taught to think for themselves. The Govt will still insist on Christians paying taxes and want to dumb down and make Christian schools like some of the zoos they have created. Certainly the likes of Andrews act like facist. That is why the fundie version of secularism is very much at rest with Islam. The ' science ' is settled for gw despite every prediction from alarmist failing. And then we came from slime (must admit regressives are the best evidence for this) and have no moral conscience. Andrews wants the irrational idiotic immoral ideologies of secularism brainwashing anyone who can think.

or you could read the Act and amendments.
it's not what you imagine it is.

Nothing is the same as what runner imagines it as.

Don't like general community laws and standards like non-discrimination?

No worries!

Don't accept general community money or tax-exemptions, nor deductions for donations and take full credit for what you do with what's left.

If you *do* accept community-sanctioned money, operate under normal community laws and acknowledge where the money came from, rather than taking credit for administering money that *could* have been democratically allocated.

Simple.

I would be interested to know when and where Bill actually taught theology.
Or indeed if he actually did so.
Because it seems to me that in 2016 it would be almost impossible for him to be invited to teach theology at any reputable theology school or college. Even in colleges at the more fundamentalist end of the Christian spectrum.
And why isnt it mentioned in the very brief CV featured at the bottom of this essay that he runs the Culture Watch website?

I think you are a bit mean and heavy handed "Agronomist"...runner always plays on the wing! He's quick, sharp and cuts in from the side when least expected.

There was recently an outcry about a man opening an old fashioned barber shop for men.

now the lefist bigots remain silent as a baker refuses to write Trump 16 on a birthday cake. Where is the court action and outrage. Not only are the leftist the biggest bigots but stink with hypocrisy.

Hi runner,

If I were a baker (I used to be a dough-presser), I would refuse to put Drumpf 16 on a cake (or 'Mao 40'). Any baker should have that discretion. I would be prepared to pay the legal price for that precious freedom of expression. Even some on the Left would agree with me. A Leftist church minister shouldn't be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for people he knows are racists, for example, or a Leftist picture-framer to knock up one of Hitler.

And what's sauce for the goose ......

Cheers,

Joe

' If I were a baker (I used to be a dough-presser), I would refuse to put Drumpf 16 on a cake (or 'Mao 40')'

Could not agree more Loudmouth however that principle was not applied to the baker refusing a cake with adam and adam wanting to be 'married'.

I would also suggest that a man like yourself would refuse to write ' Hilary 2016'. What a shocking choice of candidates. The baker however should be able to choose who he/she serves.

//that principle was not applied to the baker refusing a cake with adam and adam wanting to be 'married//

Are all gay men named Adam?

That'd make for an effective 'Final Solution to the homosexual problem' that some of the posters around here are obviously so keen to embrace: just stop naming kids Adam. I can't believe nobody's thought of it before.

Cute, Toni - create your own problem, then propose your own 'Final Solution' to it.

Hi Runner,

Yes, I'd be tempted to print 'None of the Above' on my next cake. But if I were American, I'd hold my nose and vote for Hilary. Drumpf would have everybody at war in a week.

Cheers,

Joe

Would the Victorian Labor Party employ avowed Liberals in policy making positions?

Land rights for left handed lesbian harp seals I say !

//Cute, Toni - create your own problem//

I'm not the one with a problem with homosexuality around here, Joe.

I only have so much intolerance to spread around, so I save it for the gingers (because they don't have souls, so the Gods cursed them with gingerness so that we might know who to steer clear of). It all stacks up if you examine the comparative mythology: Loki (Norse), Set (Egyptian) and Judas (Abrahamic) were all bad eggs, and all gingers. I rest my case.

What about Ginger Meggs?

I left the Methodist church and became an atheist in 1955, when I was 13. My position now is that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a God or gods, we each have to take responsibility for our own development and ability to live in harmony with others. I support Muehlenberg's stance and think that to force these changes on churches and any other body is disharmonious and puts sectarian (in this case, extreme left-wing) doctrine ahead of contributing to a society in which each person can develop their own wisdom and understanding and then act within that framework, subject of course to reasonable legal and societal constraints.

Hi Faustino,

Wow, talk about parallel lives. I agree that people should be free to believe or not, as they wish, provided that any advocacy or incitement arising from their beliefs be dealt with by the law. Any attempts, in the name of some set of beliefs, to subvert people's basic rights, equality before the law, especially that of men and women, etc., should be punished severely.

As an atheist, of course I believe that religion is a very poor basis for belief - that science, and its evidential base, is vastly superior. Evidence trumps belief, just as science trumps magic. But some moral precepts based on religion can be better than nothing at all.

As an aside, one thing I really like about OLO is that some contributions make you think about your own ideas and understandings, and what their basis may be. This thread is one good example. Knocking around Indigenous affairs for fifty-odd years, I've learnt to be sceptical about 'belief', about taking what someone says, narrative, oral story, as truth. If it's backed by some evidence, either documentary or actual physical and forensic, okay, but I've learnt to suspend belief otherwise. Frankly, I've heard so much bullsh!t from Aboriginal people.

For example, the 'Stolen Generation': in my investigations of mission and settlement records, protector's letters, school records, etc., I've found very little or no evidence of completely unwarranted removal of children (see web-site: firstsources.info). Children whose mothers had died, yes. Children whose fathers had died, yes. One parent or the other who shot through, yes. Children who quite possibly had at least one alcoholic parent, yes. Children from very large families with a dodgy bread-winner, yes. AND children taken into care for a year or less, YES, usually, then back on the settlement.

But the problem with evidence is that it loses you friends. People prefer to believe. People prefer plausible narratives. But evidence is a pointer to the truth. Narrative is pretty worthless without evidence.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, more parallels. I was advised from a supportive insider that I was seen as a threat by Queensland Treasury heads et al because of my "honesty, integrity, intellect and analytical rigour," which constantly exposed the failings in what they sought to pursue. But those things were far more important to me than playing the insider-outsider games necessary for promotion or even fair treatment.

Hi Faustino,

"Honesty, integrity, intellect and analytical rigour" ? They won't get you very far in some organisations. Total loyalty, slight incompetence, absolutely no initiative - these will take you a long way in many of them. I envy people who have had a good boss, someone who rewards work and ideas, who actually adds to your motivation.

Actually I have had one like that, a lovely bloke - after he retired he started up the Men's Sheds concept. A joy to work with. One time, when all uni schools had to re-choose Heads, he stepped out of the school meeting, his deputy took over, asked for nominations, his was the only one, the deputy asked for discussion, there was none, the deputy put it to the vote which was unanimous and the bloke was back in the room in two minutes. Those were the days.

Cheers,

Joe

runner, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 5:55:31 PM

"How else can secularist dumb down those who are taught to think for themselves."
Despite being affronted by a question violently stripped of its correct punctuation, I did indulge myself a modest guffaw of incredulity at runner's astounding observation that the religiously afflicted are the original and progressive thinkers in society.

"The Govt will still insist on Christians paying taxes and want to dumb down and make Christian schools like some of the zoos they have created."

It would be quite amusing to see a case made for christians to be exempted from paying taxes [yes, even the taxes they don't pay now]. And similarly to see one made for the dumbing process that arouses such angst.

"And then we came from slime (must admit regressives are the best evidence for this)"

Is it any more uplifting really to come from the dust of the Earth than to come from slime? The latter is immeasurably farther along the evolutionary path than is dirt, even if we are all made of the same stuff as the stars.

"......and have no moral conscience."

Approximately 99% of prison inmates world-wide have moral consciences. Secularists, humanists, atheists etc, according to runner's dictum, do quite well without moral consciences in society.
Of course, runner's irrational and idiotic hyperbole has no source in a moral conscience but its origins can be sourced to a deeply inculcated bigotry of the type used to infect very young minds. And in speaking of sources, it is one of considerable regret to the non-religious that so many erstwhile useful minds are rendered virtually useless by being "taught to think for themselves" as runner so mirthfully put it.

"Andrews wants the irrational idiotic immoral ideologies of secularism brainwashing anyone who can think."

Oh, those awful secularists! Stomping all over runner's moral consciences! Is there no surcease to their headlong pursuit of ideological putrefaction?

Permit me to apologise for my rampant hyperbole but runner's closing sentence aroused an involuntary guffaw again and provoked me to satire. Poor runner, he really is a fruit-cake.

Some atheists here are clearly missing the point when they say schools shouldn't receive government funding if they want to be discerning in whom they would employ.

Bill M has well shown up the nonsense and inconsistency in this thinking by pointing out that it somehow isn't going to apply to political parties, for instance. The Labor party won't be forced to employ Liberal voters. Yet political parties do receive a lot of tax-payer funding. There are lots of groups across the spectrum that receive much government funding, yet the Andrews Labor government is aiming its guns squarely at Christians.

I don't see how any Christian or anyone keen on our civil freedoms could want to vote Labor in Victoria.

Most Christian tax payers would gladly receive zero tax dollars given towards their private schools if in return they could get a tax credit or proportional reduction in their tax levy. Yet our state doesn't work like that. No government currently would accept that. They want the Christians' tax dollars.