My goodness what a distasteful lot these hard right fundamentalist so called Christians are.

And what a bastardisation of the word ‘ethics’ they employ.

It is not ethical to discriminate on the basis of someone’s sexuality full stop. Either for the Christian or the non.

Ethical behaviour in this instance is about treating people with respect of their differences, particularly if they are involve things they cannot alter.

It is not ethical to deny a person the right to an education based of their sexuality, especially in an institution which receives significant amounts of public monies.

For someone to shove a 2,000 year old book under our noses and to nit pick from it to promote their personal toxic homophobic viewpoint is bad enough, but to claim it is ethical is just stupid.

It isn’t ethical at all.

The author in my opinion is one of those hardliners who give the faith such a bad name.

He can’t accept that a modern view on things like legalised homosexuality have any place in the world. Indeed this is his take on slavery:

“The biblical view of slavery might be wrong in the estimation of some contemporary Christians, but God did not have such a view when he breathed out the Scriptures”.

Sure sinning is about disobeying God’s edicts, but that is separate from our own ethics which may or may not always align with God's.

One thing is clear to me though is just how much the author is seemingly bereft of personal ethics, instead always awaiting direction from another.

What Spencer defines as “Bible-believing Christians” comprises a small minority of Christians who take literally a selection of texts that reinforce their own prejudices without regard for context or the intent of the author.

The selected quotations from Romans are a good example. At most, homosexual activity is only one of a very long list of the supposed sins of the gentiles listed in the closing verses of chapter 1. Their primary sin is unbelief; the others are presented as its consequence:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A16-28&version=NRSVA

These passages are followed immediately by an equally fierce diatribe again those who presume to judge others for their supposed sins. Christians might do well to give as much weight to these passages as the ones that precede it:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A1-10&version=NRSVA

So why is Paul using such fierce and perhaps contradictory language?

One common view among scholars is that he is using ancient rhetorical techniques to expose and perhaps parody the self-righteous legalism that led Jews, and specifically Jewish Christians, to look down on their Gentile neighbours. The basic message of Romans is that neither the natural theology of the gentiles nor the legalism of the Jews delivers salvation; that comes only through God’s grace.

https://www.bible-bridge.com/ancient-rhetoric-romans-1-3/

In Romans, Paul is using polemic to mimic Jewish prejudices against “dirty” gentiles that he later reverses, declaring that “nothing is unclean in itself” (14:14). The early chapters of Romans serve a rhetorical function to mimic the prejudices of Jewish Christians in order to subvert them and promote harmony in the Roman church (15:15).

The basic law of Australia is in the Constitution, and Morrison seems to observe that. As prime minister of Australia Morrison is obligated to observe that. Morrison would be derelict in his duties were he to follow the strictures of biblical Christianity instead of the Constitution of Australia. Morrison is prime minister of Australia.

Blood soaked "Christians" led by sword wielding Bishops killed around 6 million muslems with the sword for being disbelievers and burnt saints like St Joan of arc at the stake for being too accurate in future predictions! Have a history littered with peadophillia and the cherry picking of text from a 2,000 year old book to support clearly errant and non Christian views.

Nobody conferred any authority to, Judge others, on Spenser. Spenser is one of those holier than thou, self appointed critics, looking for the sty in the eye of others, while self evidently ignoring the plank in his.

Most of the New Testiment was written at least 350 years after the event. As passed down oral history! And much as been lost in the various translations, interpretation and reviews.

And while there might still exist a thread of truth, it cannot under any circumstance be taken as the literal word of God! Those that do, like the ever judgmental Spenser. Clearly a couple of sheep short in the top paddock!
Alan B.

" Morrison is prime minister of Australia."
He replaced a better one, but worse may be yet to come.
David

The Religious Discrimination Bill failed because it did not address the crucial conflict at the heart of all rights talk – what happens when two or more important sets of rights face a non-reconcilable contradiction.

I support free speech and freedom of religion to the point where they don’t harm people – and by that I mean real harm, not just hurt feelings or outraged disagreement. I disagree with Israel’s Folau’s interpretation of scripture on homosexuality, but he should be free to express it without losing his job. I think wearing a burka is oppressive sexist nonsense, but I don’t think burkas should be banned.

I also think that organisations should be free to promote and enforce their values when they are a core part of their identity, even if those values are at odds with mainstream society - as long as the values are made clear upfront and engagement with the organisation is voluntary. The Roman Catholic church can ban female priests, Southern Baptists can forbid remarriage, Moslem communities can outlaw alcohol. The Australian Greens party should not be forced to employ climate change denying coal enthusiasts.

If the Bill had secured only these rights, it would probably have passed.

But the right of LGBTIQ+ children not to be vilified, abused, discriminated against or told their core identity is inherently sinful trumps these rights. So does the right to be protected from so-called “conversion therapies” and other religious quackery. This is especially important for children, who are particularly vulnerable to the psychological harm such discrimination can cause, and who do not have the power to make decisions about many of the most important things in their lives (such as which school to attend).