“ 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).