Religious schools should have no more right to discriminate than any other schools. That seems to be the right that the author wants.

All we can expect from post-Christian Australia is discrimination AGAINST Christianity. All other religions will be left alone.

Religion has become increasingly isolated from mainstream secularism; that retrograde moment in history where the stampede back to the days of the Roman Empire, has brought with it such debauched horrors as rainbow ideology in all its inglorious blossoming.

Being religious in the age of the State sponsored rainbow cult, has subjected, particularly if Christian, those that cling stubbornly to its tenants, a taste of the inglorious end of Orson Wells Citizen Kane, in his end days: Lonely, abandoned and rejected.

Don’t vote, you only support the furtherance of the cult!

There's a handful of fundamental fanatics, head buriers and religious nut jobs who believe they have a right to discriminate against folk who were born different.

God created mankind in his own image, which includes the LGBT transgender and gay community.

Seriously, a fervent belief in a flat earth never made it flat and the only way one could discriminate against the aforementioned is by religiously avoiding looking at the mounting evidence that gay people are born gay!

Get over it, it doesn't affect or harm you or yours and it's not contagious!

Labor should never ever revisit this garbage/religious BS!
Alan B.

Alan B

I completely agree with you that “God created mankind in his own image, which includes the LGBT transgender and gay community.”

But many religious folk sincerely don’t, and believe that their religions declare homosexuality to be sinful. The Hebrew Scriptures, New Testament and Koran all contain texts that condemn homosexuality. And unfortunately, it is not just “a handful of fundamental fanatics” who hold this position. Many of the largest Christian, Islamic and Jewish religious institutions officially condemn homosexual acts.

The question is whether religious schools and institutions should be free to teach this, and expect their students and staff to act in accordance with what they believe is their faith’s moral teaching.

I am torn by this issue as I think freedom of religion is a very important principle, but so is the right of LGBTQI+ folk to be respected and accepted for who they are and not discriminated against. Gay kids at religious schools need particularly sensitive treatment.

My view is that religious schools should be free to teach what they believe their religions advocate, and people like me who are practicing Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who disagree with that interpretation should take up the argument within our institutions.

It is one think to permit religious freedom, however, and another thing to expect society to pay for advocacy of positions which are at odds with mainstream community values. One measure that might help to focus the minds of these organisations would be to remove government funding and subsidies from schools and other institutions that refuse to uphold basic principles of non-discrimination. I suspect we’d see some rapid progress if this occurred.

Christianity is one religion among many, and it should be treated as one religion among many.

“ One measure that might help to focus the minds of these organisations would be to remove government funding and subsidies from schools and other institutions that refuse to uphold basic principles of non-discrimination. I suspect we’d see some rapid progress if this occurred.”

Ho Ho…don’t you love this one!

Here is how it wouldn’t work:

From the Christian view point, even a scant knowledge of the historical journey of Christianity since the first century, would offer a smorgasbord of options open to believers.

Since the early believers were ostensibly Jewish, immediately there is an alternative opening.
Islam offers another choice, with its strict moral codes of obedience to doctrine, as opposed to a confused and runaway modern day Christianity.

And what a gutless example of Secular cowardice is open for inspection on this level. The most recent would be Wilkies moralising butchery of the the good believers from Hillsong.

One would wonder not, weather his next exposé will be inclusive of Muslim moral failures: I’ll put all my money on no, since it’s fairly clear now, that Muslims are the subject of mass surveillance in the US, and as a consequence in Australia too.

Wilkie wouldn’t wish to be accused of rocking the secret service boat, by exposing this uncomfortable truth.

Plain it is that defunding religious schools will not force any majority back into a failed public school system that preaches secular debauchery from a rainbow Bible to vulnerable children of any believer, but most likely enlarge the numbers of the stronger and more radical alternatives.

Overarching the above speculation, there is little secret to the fact that religious schools offer a service to the taxpayer by providing infrastructure at a small cost by comparison, to the cost of a failed Public School system.

It's incumbent on believers who take a subjective view on faith and highly revised, edited and reinterpreted chicken scratchings in a 2,000-year-old book alone, to hold open in the mind, that the opposite could also be true.

But especially if all the available scientific evidence says otherwise!

A fervent belief in a flat earth never made it flat but did make holders of that belief among the most ignorant and fear filled folk on earth!

Ditto those who discriminate against natural born difference! I mean why stop at the gay/queer community?

We could also discriminate against brown eyes, brown skin or fuzzy wuzzy hair and it seems we did once on similar flawed religious grounds. Citing brown skin as the mark of cain!

One doesn't need to be a bible bashing moron to believe any of the above discriminations, but it surely has to help!

Q: Was an unmarried JC a gay man? And if he was? And if he personally never ever berated homosexuals for their condition, but other writers who may not have been divinely inspired did, but simply parroted a belief that was a popular part of the local social more at the time and place. Does that make current religious discrimination right?

The bible also seems to favour slavery and the stoning to death of females based solely on the accusing, evidence free, finger of a spouse. JC said, ye without sin cast the first stone. But it seems, never condemned slavey.
Alan B.

Rhain: Community values once included slavery and the stoning to death of alleged female adulteress as ok. Even when supported by so-called religious text. Simply put, clearly not all religious text can be said to be the word of God.

When the scientific evidence shows community values are wrong, should we then cling to them to make a wrong a right?

Science has found one definite gay gene and three other probables. And probably passed on by the female line.

No doubt as time goes by more supporting confirming evidence will be found.

Anybody raised alongside a gay person knows full well that it was never ever something that they chose. And given what bastardry they have to tolerate, nobody would!
Alan B.

Always good for a laugh, the idea of "persecuted" Christians. True of some countries, but it's not true of this one.

Australian Christians are the most cosseted minority group ever. Have a look their ring-fenced $15b for church schools, their invasive school "chaplains", anti-discrimination waivers, permissions to target LGBTQ teachers and pupils, tax waivers, exemptions from delivering gay marriage, lucrative outsourcing of essential services to Christian groups, on and on it goes

Alan

I agree that the Bible was written by men (not many women) and reflects the values and assumptions of their times. As a Christian, I think it is also divinely inspired and holds enduring and profound messages for people in all times and cultures. But it is not an instruction manual. We have quietly put away many biblical injunctions that are not compatible with modern scientific knowledge or cultural values. Also, as our circumstances and challenges change, we are called to apply fundamental Christian principles – love God and your neighbour being the most important – in new and relevant ways. We are all created in God’s image – male and female; black, brown and white; gay, straight and other; young and old – and all beloved by God and called to be in relationship with God and each other.

I’m not sure whether being gay is genetic, but I do think it is intrinsic to who a person is, and as Christians we have no business condemning a person for being as God made them, or telling them not to live a full life including loving relationships.

But … many Christians disagree with me. I’m happy to argue with them, but I don’t want to silence them. Freedom of speech and conscience have meaning only if we tolerate people espousing and living according to their own values even when we profoundly disagree with them

We first need to decide what 'freedom of religion means'. It seems to me that both major political parties are more interested in talking about things religious people and religious organisations should NOT have freedom to do - i.e discriminate in their teachings and employment of people who practice or promote lifestyles not acceptable to their belief: homosexuality, transgenderism etc.

I'll bet that our common enemies, political parties, would not hire people who are not in tune with their political beliefs; yet they want religious organisations like schools to do the opposite.

Christian or not, we all need to grasp that Christianity is in the world, not of the world. It is totally unrealistic to expect Christianity to change with the times, or bow down to whatever the latest human whim happens to be. I think that Muslims, Hindus, Shinto and Buddhism followers believe this too.

If you do not adhere to any religion, so be it; you can ignore religious beliefs altogether - but don't expect religious people to turn their backs on their beliefs. You don't need to have anything to do with religion. You don't have to send your kids to religious schools, apply for jobs in religious organisations, or be treated in religious hospitals.

Rhian,

Yours is a thoughtful post, with a lot of good sense. However, it is OK to discriminate to defend your beliefs; and you do not have to "respect" people or practices that you find obnoxious and totally opposed to your beliefs. In general, people should be allowed to act in ways that don't affect other people, and call themselves whatever they chose to believe they are - but they cannot expect other people to agree with them or respect them (particularly for something that is biologically impossible).

Looks like Christians are being persecuted in the supposedly modern era- maybe we will be like John The Baptist.

As for people being created in 'God's image', we were created male or female. Hermaphrodites are extremely rare, and none of the people "identifying" as non-binary or some other modern mania have presented as such; it is all in their minds or, in many cases a deliberate confidence trick to attract attention. Advertising for cynically woke corporations has been a profitable gig recently.

I can see the headline- "Albanese wants Christian heads and principles on platters."

I don't agree with Rhian on anything it seems.

I was raised a Christian and a very devout one at that. Considered the priesthood until at 18 I read several books outlawed by the church. A history they didn't want folk to know.

A divinely inspired book would have condemned slavery and the subjugation of women instead of embracing both.

As for a genetic case for homosexual sexual bias, the compelling evidence is out there for those willing to look. And the reason politicians should never ever revisit the religious discrimination bill ever again. No nay never no more!

Let the 12 or 13% that want it, jump up and down and howl their wilfully blind heads off.

If they would continue to discriminate, cut off all government funding.
Alan B.

Actually, Canem, I agree with you on that

Ttbn

In everyday life we are free to hold a low opinion of people for all sorts of reasons. But in institutional setting such as schools and the workplace we provide legal protections for people not to be discriminated against on the basis of characteristics such as race, gender or sexual orientation. The core of this issue is that it pits two important and mutually incompatible rights against each other.

Alan

There are several theories on the cause of homosexuality. It is interesting, but in the end I don’t think it really matters. It is clearly has some basis in biology and is not a lifestyle choice, as was once wrongly assumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#:~:text=While%20scientists%20do%20not%20know,%2C%20hormonal%2C%20and%20environmental%20influences.

I hope we’ve moved past having to argue that it’s not “their fault”. It is who they are. While kindly intended, the risk in that kind of argument is treating homosexuality as some sort of disability or biological abnormality.

Slavery and oppression of women were universal in ancient middle eastern cultures (and elsewhere, as far as I know) and it is unrealistic to expect that the bible’s authors would use their writings to argue for abolition and gender equality. And, the Bible is not primarily a moral handbook. Peter Sellick has written of this on OLO far more eloquently than l can.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=22230&page=0

Martin Luther King said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. I hope that Christianity at its best contributes to that process. So far as I know (I’m willing to be corrected) the first societies formally abolish slavery were predominantly Christian countries. Many Christians were prominent abolitionists who used the Bible to support their arguments – eg “In Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). When Christians try to apply the core principles of our faith – love your neighbour, do not judge, serve others – it is good for society. Unfortunately, we often fail to do that.

Dear Rhian,

There were people in the pre-Christian world who thought slavery was a bad thing. I visited Delphi in Greece. There were many inscriptions there from people who announced that they had freed their slaves. In the year AD 9, the Emperor Wang Mang (r. 9–23 AD) usurped the Chinese throne and, to deprive landowning families of their power, instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform. In the New Testament Paul advised slaves to be obedient to their masters, and Jesus never condemned slavery. British industry benefited by supplying factory-made goods in exchange for enslaved people. Profits made in the slave trade provided money for investment in British industry. Banks and insurance companies which offered services to slave merchants expanded and made cities such as London very wealthy. The south in the US Civil War was more Christian than the North. They used such myths as 'the curse of Ham' to support their pro-slavery ideology. Although there were Christians such as Wilberforce who opposed slavery the historical record of Christianity toward slavery is no better and possibly worse than that of the non-Christian world.

Rhian,

If, as you say, "we provide legal protections for people not to be discriminated against on the basis of characteristics such as race, gender or sexual orientation" what is all the fuss about?

Some people are complaining that they are being discriminated against, but you are saying that "we provide legal protection" for such people.

What we need is a list of instances of people who have actually been discriminated against by religious organisations, and how many of them have taken their complaints to the Human Rights Commission for action.

But, this article by Greg Bondar is about the rights of religious schools etc, to have:

. the freedom to employ people of their faith,

. not to be forced to employ anti-Christian and pro-LGBTIQA+ activist teachers who are hostile to the school's biblical beliefs

. not to have the activist teachers indoctrinating beliefs hostile to the school's moral and ethical teachings on the nature of sex, natural marriage, and family

But, you and others have taken the opportunity to turn religious freedom around to supposed freedoms for people definitely out of line with Christian and other religious beliefs to be employed by, or take part in, Christian or other religious organisations.

Greg Bondar, as National Director of Family Voice Australia is concerned about having a Bill to protect religious organisations - not a Bill to protect people who want to hijack religious organisations and force their way into areas when they don't need to be, when there are plenty of schools, employers and so on who will take them in.

Rather than deal with the theme of the article, you have gone into bat for the 'other side'. Religious freedom mean's freedom for religions to act in accordance with their beliefs, not freedom for others to dictate to them or white ant them.

Posted by Rhian
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22448#390429

Comment 1-
There are several theories on the cause of homosexuality. It is interesting, but in the end I don’t think it really matters. It is clearly has some basis in biology and is not a lifestyle choice, as was once wrongly assumed.
I hope we’ve moved past having to argue that it’s not “their fault”. It is who they are. While kindly intended, the risk in that kind of argument is treating homosexuality as some sort of disability or biological abnormality.

Answer 1- We don't know what the cause of homosexuality but we do know that most people are not homosexual and believe it is incompatible with their lives. But homosexual culture apparently believes in the ideology that the masses must be forced to accept homosexual culture as normal. The possible reasons for homosexuality range from physical changes in the brain due to testosterone in the womb, to psychological (see Jordan Peterson's interview with a sad semi-transitioned girl), to ideological exploitation of human weaknesses. There are birth illnesses that are in a sense similar to homosexuality- but that doesn't mean that we necessarily focus on the illness- but we shouldn't treat it as normal. Children are in a process of finding their identity but parents have a right in my view to influence this process. Ideologues that operate through schools appear to believe that they have a right to influence childrens sexual identity and beliefs- I believe this is probably evil. Sounds very similar to Mao's march through the institutions. Interesting that leftists often ascribe everything to nurture over nature but in this case they seem to ascribe it to nature.

We can't fix everything- and we should try to be kind, but some use peoples better nature to destroy them, some will never want to fit in dynamically opposing whatever the community does to adjust to the "needs", then they blame the community for being prejudice- sounds very similar to Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution- at some stage it needs to be recognised that to adapt to people and counter cultures in the name of anti-prejudice comprises your own principles and culture and community. It seems that the only solution here is to create a semi-autonomous region so that those people can government themselves according to their own principles. But if their aim is to destroy the host then obviously they won't agree to that.

Comment 2-
Slavery and oppression of women were universal in ancient middle eastern cultures (and elsewhere, as far as I know) and it is unrealistic to expect that the bible’s authors would use their writings to argue for abolition and gender equality.

Answer 2-
Perhaps most people were oppressed in ancient cultures.

Comment 3-
And, the Bible is not primarily a moral handbook.

Answer 3-
Perhaps Rhian isn't in the position to say what The Bible is primarily. And I think perhaps Rhian misunderstood Galatians 3:28.

Our sexual bias is determined by 4 sex centres at the base of the brain, two for females and two for males. Sexual attraction and drive or libido.

If the wrong 2 are firing, then the sexual attraction will be for the same sex.

We can surgically burn out any inappropriate sexual basis and make relate solely to the gender of the individual.

Instead, we spend a veritable fortune on try to alter the gender to fit what the individuals feels is them.

We could do a simple procedure at birth to eliminate inappropriate sexual bias.

In males we could simply burn out the two female responders and ditto male responders for female babies.

A tiny electrode is inserted, and an equally tiny electric current is used to do the painless job.

In adults it is possible to see what sexual centres fires/lights up via thermal imaging up utilising sexual stimuli to establish for all time, that sexual bias is never ever a matter of choice, regardless of what the truly ignorant and their equally abysmally ignorant holy books say!

It's like an erection, breathing or your heartbeat, a truly autonomous natural reflex.
Alan B.

David f

Thank you for the historical information, that was interesting. I will not attempt to defend the history of slavery in Christian societies, or of Christians at times in legitimising slavery, but I do take solace in the prominent role of Christians in finally abolishing it.

Ttbn

The fuss is about is whether religious schools and other institutions should be provided with full or partial exemption from legal protections against discrimination that apply elsewhere. For example, as a woman, I could never become a Roman Catholic priest, but excluding me from almost any other job on the basis of my gender would be illegal.

Teaching gay children that they are sinners destined for hell would be considered vile and harmful hate speech by many, and I guess would get a teacher in a state school sacked. But others think that is an accurate representation of what the Bible says , e.g.

“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

I agree with you that religious freedom means freedom to act in accordance with one’s beliefs, and as I indicated earlier, I think that freedom should be protected even though I fiercely disagree with some of what is taught in the name of religion

Canem

It depends on whether you look at “normal” from an individual or population perspective.

Most adults are between 150 and 190cm tall. Most have an IQ of 80 to 120. Most are right- handed. And most are heterosexual.

But in any largeish population, there are people who are exceptionally short or tall, people who are unusually intelligent or dumb, people who are left-handed (I’m one), and people who are homosexual.

So in one sense being left-handed makes me abnormal; but in a normal population about 10% of people are left-handed. Scientists are not exactly sure about its cause; genes and foetal development are candidates (like homosexuality). I don’t understand what you mean by homosexuality being “compatible” with our lives; no-one is trying to make straight people gay, and no-one is trying to make right-handed people left-handed (though in the past, in both cases, the reverse was sometimes true).

That some people are left-handed, and some are homosexual, and some are short, and some are clever, is just part of our human diversity.

The case of transgender people is more complicated, and I share concerns that some people have been encouraged to make permanent life-changing medical interventions at too young an age that they later regret. I also agree that parents have a role guiding children who are struggling with their sexual identity.

The “long march” of Mao was an actual long march. The phrase “long march through the institutions” was coined by German socialist Rudi Dutschke.

On whether the Bible is primarily a moral handbook, I’m a regular churchgoer who has studied theology and I have never heard or read anyone say that it is primarily a moral handbook, but encountered many preachers and theologians who argue it is not. Perhaps you could point to a recognised authority who argues differently?

Yes, there are different interpretations of Galatians and other texts addressing slavery. My contention, though, was that Christians were prominent in the abolitionist movements, and texts such as this were important in framing their thinking and arguments. Jankiewitz called it the “Magna Carta” of abolitionism.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232856898.pdf

No law whatsoever about religion can be made, neither for nor against, for the simple that no institution can ever define "religion".

Christianity (and/or any Church thereof), like so many other institutions, is not necessarily a religion and cannot be automatically and blindly considered as such: at times and for certain people Christianity indeed serves as a religion, but at other times and for other people it serves completely different purposes.

Without the ability to define religion, it is in the interest of every religious person (but not only them) to have as few as possible legal restrictions on behaviour by the state - because in a culture of restrictions, one can never tell whether their own religion will be in jeopardy, when they themselves will face the terrible choice of either turning their back to God or be eaten by lions!

In that spirit, states should never order parents what their children are to be taught. Parents should be able to teach their children whatever they want, either in person or by proxy(s) of their own choice. The above applies to both religious and non-religious values, because no law can possibly distinguish between the two.

But as Rhian mentioned, there is no reason whatsoever why a state should pay for the education of children in values that are not consistent with its own.

Similarly in workplaces: an employer should never be limited as to whom they employ or not. It is their money (assuming it indeed is) and they should be able to do with it as they want.

Same for the state, same for parents, same for workplaces, same for schools: he who pays the piper calls the tune!

http://fee.org/articles/antonio-gramsci-the-godfather-of-cultural-marxism/

I remember something about "Mao's Four Pillars Policy" of attacks on institutions- including Education, Health, Army/ Police, Courts others refer to these being necessary for a coup. But Gramsci seems to describe this above- though he doesn't refer to it as such.

People are not always what they seem to be. Recently our niece was telling us, whilst house sitting for a couple, very religious people, happy clappers on Sundays, wife works in pre-school, husband a professional at IT, 3 young kids, 2 cars, nice 2 story house, swimming pool, a dog and 2 cats, and plenty of dosh. The perfect middle class conservatives. Well, what did niece discover in a bottom draw by accident, porno DVD's and sex toys. She said; "Uncle I wouldn't have thought", I said; "Ah, it takes all kinds, people are both public, and private.".....Then she thought she would take the micky out of uncle; How much does a @!#%#@ cost? I said; "Go online girl and FIND OUT, I'm sure they have a deluxe model just for you, ha, ha."

Dear Paul1405,

You wrote,

"Well, what did niece discover in a bottom draw by accident, porno DVD's and sex toys."

What kind of accident could cause niece to find what people had in their dresser?

Hi David,

I asked the same question, said she did the washing left in the machine, and was putting it away. I don't know, assured me she wasn't snooping. I said; "of course you weren't. "UNCLE I DON"T SNOOP" anyway they are friends of hers.

That reminds me of the man who had a pair of panties tattooed on his chest. He wanted to have a chest of drawers.

Rhian posted "It depends on whether you look at “normal” from an individual or population perspective."

Answer- It's not what I think is normal- it's perhaps what society thinks is normal. Though wokeness has constrained people voicing their opinion- and done harm to democracy. Research, education and discussion is important for democracy- this is subverted if it is controlled by special ideological Communists agenda's. But all is fair in war.

In a sense I agree with the Communists- there is a difference between what society wants and what it needs- Consumer Culture under Edward Bernay's caused in a sense this existential confusion.

Be careful David, you don't want to get booed off stage, that one came close, but the "judging panel" gave you a six, so you are in the quarter finals next week.