As an Atheist I think we should allow religious groups to discriminate. However no Government funding should be give to these groups. Then we will see what is more important the money of the dogma.

Agreed. Get rid of the tax-free status, stop them taking public funds for limited private use and then let them live or die by their own virtue.
And they need to arrest the pedophile harboring management too: They have yet to come to justice for generations of evil.
Alas, the Rudd government is just as cozy with the church as Howard was. Like the Banks they may be too dangerous to cross.

As another atheist, I don't think religious groups should be allowed exemptions from anti-discrimination laws since this implies that the principle of non-discrimination(a human right) is not universal.Also religious organizations have no claim on taxpayers' money or the right to exemption from taxation.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which Australia has ratified, states in Article 18.3:

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Do NOT hold your breath, they Commonwealth, HREOC and others, are still arguing that the segregation, the separation of Australian families by racial identification is permitted...

.

Why is the fact that most pedophile Priests are actually homosexuals never mentioned. (I wonder). Why are statistics not published as to the high rate of disease among practicing homosexuals. Talk to any honest doctor if you don't believe me. Why are their 'gay only bars' Is this not discrimination?

Jim needs to realize that just because something is legal it is not necessarily morally right. Teachers are not just teachers in most Christian schools. They should model a healthy normal lifestyle. Living in defacto or homosexual relationships is abnormal. It is destructive to children and society. The feminized State systems have proved to be abject failures. Why on earth would Private schools want to follow such an atrocious model. Decades of denial and social engineering has led to masses of parents even of non Christian backgrounds wanting their children to grow up with some decent morals.

Just look at the churches that are embracing homosexual Priests. They are dying. On the other hand churches preaching biblically are growing at the rate of knots.

The homosexual lobby should keep its grubby hands off trying to manipulate others to accept as normal what is clearly sinful.

Runner asked: Why is the fact that most pedophile Priests are actually homosexuals never mentioned?

Dear Runner,

One good reason it is not mentioned is that it isn't true. The Catholic Church has used the pedophilia issue to push their agenda against homosexuality. It is difficult to get statistics, but it is likely that most pedophile priests are heterosexual males with a warped sexuality due to the fact they are denied the normal sexual outlets that adult males not under vows of celibacy have. Please cite what evidence you have that most pedophile Priests are actually homosexuals.

david f

The simple fact that these Priests like boys and not girls speaks volumes. In case you did not know a homosexual is one with an sexual attraction to their own sex. The fact that the Catholic church of which I am no fan wants to prevent homosexuals from joining the Priesthood as a measure to reduce child sexual abuse speaks volumes. You may deny the obvious as the homosexual lobby conveniently does but is does not change the facts. You however make the ridiculous suggestion that someone who abstains from sex is more likely to be perverted by doing so. The far more reasonable explanation is that the Catholic church has attracted many with homosexual or confused sexual tendencies. The outcome has been ruined life. The refusal to deal with these issues by the 'church' has been nothing short of disgraceful. In saying that Governments, artist, sports administrators, judges etc have been no better.

Runner wrote: The simple fact that these Priests like boys and not girls speaks volumes.

Dear Runner,

You merely repeated your belief without citing evidence for it. I already know what you believe. Please cite what evidence you have for what you call fact.

yet again.

runner, i agree that something being legal doesn't make it moral. but similarly, your saying something is immoral doesn't make it so.

please tell me: why is homosexuality immoral?

bushbasher asked runner to "please tell me: why is homosexuality immoral?"

I wouldn't presume to anticipate runner's response, but I will argue that the Christian prejudice cannot be argued from the Bible.

The Bible actually says very little about homosexuality.

The most explicit, and condemnatory, passages, and consequently those most often quoted by conservative Christians, are in Old Testament books like Leviticus.

Agreed, there is little ambiguity about statements that "man shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is an abomination" (or various translations thereof). However, the problem is that Leviticus condemns a whole range of practices as "abominations", including the eating of shellfish, handling unclean animals, even shaving one's beard improperly! Very few of even the most conservative Christians observe those rules, so to zero in on just one verse about homosexuality is simply cherry-picking to suit one's prejudice.

Christians fare even worse when it comes to the New Testament.

Nothing that is attributed to Jesus even mentions homosexuality. There are only two sentences, attributed to St. Paul, which are of extremely dubious translation. I won't go into the details of koine Greek, but the most commonly cited one seems to be more exclusively directed at pederast users of rent boys, than homosexuality per se.

Citing St. Paul on matters of sexuality is dangerous ground, anyway, as Paul was so uptight that he condemned any sexual activity whatsoever, even though he grudgingly conceded that marriage was a least-worst case.

Runner. I respect your beliefs, and as your beliefs make you a part of societies minority, why can you not accept that there are people in this life, other than yourself.

Thank you to those rational debaters' thoughtful comments. I have just finished a 30+ year career in special education in the state sytstem. I am a happily out gay man proudly responsible for the literacy, numeracy and engagement skills of more than two generations of students with disabilities. The solution is simple, if any organisation wishes to discriminate against anyone through an exemption under the law, they can do without all government funds. Pick a "top" private school and find out how many students with disabilities attend. If they do, they will have a 'nice' disability - hearing impairment, some physical impairment, maybe vision impairment. They won't have the 'out there' impairments that require highly specialised teaching and learning strategies. They won't be too 'different'. They won't scare the coiffed and moneyed parents.

Selectivity = no government handout.

To people like runner, I think your outlook is terribly sad. It must be truly awful to live in a world where nothing at all is right or, dare I say it, righteous. Chill, sweetie. We poofs are not overrunning the world, just making it a better place for everyone. And yes, that includes you.

I have a simpler solution - get rid of anti-discrimination legislation. The cure is worse than the disease, by far. Having a law passed in one's favour is a great privilege, and here we see the privilege being abused to coerce others.

I see no moral difference between a homophobe wanting to pass a law against homosexuality and a homosexual wanting to pass a law against homophobia. In both cases they want to use the law to coerce people whose views or behaviour they do not approve of. The argument for removing laws against homosexuality, based on freedom of private behaviour, cannot be sustained if it means that the parents of children going to a private school cannot select they type of person teaching their children. To force the school to employ, say, an unmarried mother, an avowed atheist, or a homosexual teacher even though that goes against the school's ethos seems a far greater violation of "rights" than the putative "discrimination" which may arise as a result.

Otherwise, it is a case of "rights for me, but not for thee."

As for other alleged cases of "discrimination", I think society has advanced to the point where real discrimination is best dealt with by social censure rather than the law. So I favour removing the law entirely.

||

What has a persons sexuality have to do, with the field of work they are in. Surely it is the qualifications and standards that that individual can contribute, to the benefit of the student.
We as members of the community, first and foremost have an obligation to the betterment of our community for all.

parallel, you raise two long-discredited misconceptions.

First misconception: if exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are removed, private schools will be forced to hire atheists, homosexuals and unmarried mothers.

This is a scare tactic. In Tasmania, where exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are not granted on the grounds of sexuality, religious bodies are hiring employees the same way everyone else does. They write a job description, a set of selection criteria, and an advertisement. Then they interview, and offer the job to the best applicant. In Tasmania no-one is required to hire homosexuals – it simply is not permitted to refuse to hire the best candidate because s/he is homosexual.

In the other states and territories, if an employee is later found to be homosexual (or atheist, or unmarried mother), that employee can be fired out of hand. In Tasmania, the employee can only be dismissed for inappropriate behaviour. If the employee is behaving appropriately, meeting the requirements of the job description, then the employer has absolutely no problem.

This has been working well for over ten years now.

Second misconception: Anti-discrimination laws grant special rights to minorities.

If you're able-bodied, you don't need to wonder for long how protections against discrimination on the grounds of disability benefit you. Anyone can become disabled, any time. If you're a man, protection from gender discrimination might seem of little use, except that the benefits to women in your family will presumably flow on to you too.

In the case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, you do benefit. In every state and territory except NSW discrimination is prohibited on the grounds of sexuality. This means that you cannot be disadvantaged because you are perceived to be, or indeed are, heterosexual. Or homosexual. In 2002 an attempt to change the NSW Anti-discrimination Act to protect "sexuality" rather than "homosexuality" failed.

Finally, allow me to provide you with a parallel, parallel:

"I see no moral difference between an anti-semite wanting to pass a law against Judaism and a Jew wanting to pass a law against anti-semitism."

Still unable to see a moral difference?

Good article. I agree with those who suggest that religious groups should be able to discriminate against those who do not conform to their beliefs and strictures, but that the corollary to this is that they should receive no tax breaks or funding from government sources, nor should discriminatory religious groups be eligible to contract to provide publicly funded services.

Given the extent to which mostly Christian organisations and churches have insinuated themselves into our health, education and welfare services - particularly during the Howard years - this might provide them with a financial incentive to modify their discriminatory ideologies in order to continue to suck off the public teat. Otherwise, they could simply fade into the ideologically obscure background where they belong.

Either result would be better than the current situation.

Good article.
And CJ Morgan, I agree with what you say. Let's see how long the discrimination lasts when the tax breaks and money stop.

Discrimination means choice. The Anti discrimination act should be scrapped as it is in itself an inverse form discrimination. If I own a business it is my business. If I choose at my loss not to deal with someone that is my call not the government’s .Yet the law says you cannot make a choice, so much for liberty and freedom of action. An organisation that has as it values opposition to homosexuality, divorce, polygamy or paedophilia cannot be expected to employ someone who values diametrically opposes the organisations culture. If you do not like that organisations values do not join it.

Well said foxydude.

And this issue has got nothing to do with tax breaks. That's an entirely different discussion. Churches should get tax breaks primarily because of their end goals- providing a service to the community, rather than making profits.

Trav, do you have hard facts that religous organisations receiving taxpayers money, are not profit making, when they do not produce annual financial reports.
Accordingly is it moral that these organisations receiving public money, should be exempt from law when they can pick, choose and dictate who they employ.

"If I own a business it is my business. If I choose at my loss not to deal with someone that is my call not the government’s."

Not true. The Trade Practices Act restricts who you can choose not to deal with, and in addition to anti-discrimination laws, there are many other restrictions on how you can choose to run your business.

"An organisation that has as it values opposition to homosexuality, divorce, polygamy or paedophilia cannot be expected to employ someone who values diametrically opposes the organisations culture."

First, sexuality and marital status are completely irrelevant in determining whether or not someone can do a job effectively. They also tell us absolutely nothing about a person's values.

Second, law-abiding citizens don't practise polygamy or paedophilia. Law-abiding employers who are aware that an applicant for a position in their organisation is engaging in criminal behaviour have no need of exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. All they need do is call the police.

Third, organisations are expected to employ the best applicant for the position they are trying to fill. This is best for the organisation, best for all the applicants, and best for society. It results in robust, well-functioning organisations, individuals employed where they are most effective, and a society that is seen to value transparency and fairness. Religious bodies' exemptions to anti-discrimination laws work against these benefits.

Several people here have stated that organisations should not be required/expected to hire homosexuals, but none have stated why. Quite simply, there are no compelling arguments why any organisation, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of their sexuality.

Woulfe

"Several people here have stated that organisations should not be required/expected to hire homosexuals, but none have stated why."

Good point. It's probably because of our upbringing, which is some of the deranged religious stuff which has been ingrained in us. Perhaps it might take another generation for this ingrained discrimination to die off.

"Quite simply, there are no compelling arguments why any organisation, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of their sexuality."

Another good point. That is why some of us believe giving exemptions to organisations is one of the reasons discrimination against groups you mention continues.

Woulfe,
I do own a business. And regardless of what legislation says I choose not to service some clients. I may decline those clients by over quoting or not giving them a time frame they like but you will find many businesses who do not want a job or a client will find someway of knocking back the work. In my case I will not do work for organisations I would object too any other time - Should I do work for the Nazi party or Al Qaeda? If as you say I am forced to accept everyone who knocks on my door then I would be advancing interests of those I am opposed to.
As for sexuality, it does define a person’s values, those values may be very liberal but it does define them. It also becomes an issue for an organisation that opposes that form of sexuality. So that organisation cannot be expected to employ someone no matter how professional if the individuals’ values are opposite to the organisations. In the case of some religious organisations - Muslim and Christian they are openly opposed to homosexuality and any encouragement of it and have been so for a long time. To force such organisations to employ someone opposed to them is not reasonable to do so would be going against the commands of Allah or Christ, to such people these are commands are applicable wherever you are in the universe, they are of higher value than some law of parliament in a particular country on a particular planet.

woulfe,

I'm puzzled. Would it be possible for a school to specify that a particular job was to be filled by, say, a heterosexual married female who followed a particular religious doctrine, or not? And perhaps further specify that said female not engage in extra-marital affairs or otherwise engage in morally reprehensible conduct (as determined by the values of the institution)?

In addition, if (say) a school refused to hire someone on the grounds that they were homosexual, could not they be sued under anti-discrimination law (outside Tasmania)? If so, is that not equivalent to forcing them to hire a homosexual? Or is this my misconception?

I did not imply that the law grants 'special rights' to minorities. It does offer more opportunities for minorities to exploit the law. This is not the reason I think the laws are bad.

On your homophobia/anti-semitism analogy, I don't favour laws against anti-semitism, either. I would no more force an anti-semite to hire a jew as force a jew to hire an anti-semite. I would, however, critise the anti-semitism - and anti-discrimination laws have been used to prevent and punish such criticism, which is why we are better off without them.

||

"If as you say I am forced to accept everyone who knocks on my door ... " But I didn't say that. You claimed that if you wish to refuse to deal with someone it's "my call not the government’s." I responded that the Trade Practices Act and other laws limit whom you can choose not to deal with. Quote me by all means, but please do so accurately.

"As for sexuality, it does define a person’s values." I'm very interested to know where you found the data indicating that sexuality defines values.

"It also becomes an issue for an organisation that opposes that form of sexuality. So that organisation cannot be expected to employ someone no matter how professional if the individuals’ values are opposite to the organisations." This view assumes that individuals with a particular but unspecified "form of sexuality" are incapable of the values associated with your hypothetical organisation.

To give a more concrete example, a young man grows up in a religious environment, attending a religious school, carrying out the required religious observances and professing the beliefs and values of that religion. As adulthood approaches, this young man realises that he is attracted to the same sex, and simultaneously his lifelong capacity to hold the values of his religion is wiped out.

I don't think so.

As I said above, sexuality tells us nothing about a person's values. Further, without proof of your claim that sexuality determines values, the notion that individuals with a particular "form of sexuality" are incapable of sharing any given set of values is absurd. Most certainly it is no basis for granting an exemption that places religious bodies above the law.

"they are of higher value than some law of parliament ... " Well, actually, no they're not. Or more precisely, religious laws may be of higher value to some individuals, but they don't entitle religious organisations to override the rights and freedoms of others, and they don’t release religious bodies from the legal and moral obligations that apply to every other organisation.

Woulfe

"religious laws may be of higher value to some individuals, but they don't entitle religious organisations to override the rights and freedoms of others, and they don’t release religious bodies from the legal and moral obligations that apply to every other organisation."

From what seems to be happening at the UN, this is all going to change, one religious group is seeking to "lawfully" put itself above the rights and freedoms of others. Namely the right to criticize it's deranged religious message. This religious group can't stand being criticised, all the while it continues to deride, criticise and restrict the message of others.

of course george pell also whines about people criticizing his deranged religious message. while, simultaneously, the pope visits africa and lies about condoms.

bassam, the UN stuff is awful and absurd. but there's plenty of preciousness and derangement to go around.

"Trav, do you have hard facts that religous organisations receiving taxpayers money, are not profit making, when they do not produce annual financial reports."

You don't need to be a rhodes scholar to figure out that churches don't fall into the category of profit making enterprises. Nor do you need to review financial statements of every single one.

"Accordingly is it moral that these organisations receiving public money, should be exempt from law when they can pick, choose and dictate who they employ."

I don't see why not.

Everyone dictates who they employ, don't they

Trav wrote: You don't need to be a rhodes scholar to figure out that churches don't fall into the category of profit making enterprises. Nor do you need to review financial statements of every single one.

Dear Trav,

Churches themselves are not profit making enterprises. However, they certainly can make a profit. Televangelists can rake in large amounts of money. Churches can also own enterprises who are set up to make a profit. An example is Sanitarium Foods owned by the Seventh Day Adventists.

Trav also wrote: Everyone dictates who they employ, don't they?

Dear Trav,

When an employer refuses to employ a person due to criteria such as political or religious beliefs or ethnicity which have nothing to do with their proficiency at their task they have illegally discriminated. The Catholic Church has a right to insist that a priest be a believing Catholic as that is connected with his job. They have no right to insist that their accountant be a believing Catholic as that is not connected with his job.

"Quite simply, there are no compelling arguments why any organisation, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of their sexuality."

You should tell that to the Victorian government which is legislating to encourage 'positive' discrimination against white males.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_despise/

Cornflower - what does that tired, old and thoroughly discredited rant from the odious Andrew Bolt have to do with a discussion about discrimination by religious organisations against homosexuals?

I'm genuinely interested in how you might seek to make what appears to be a very tenuous connection, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

C J Morgan

What I wrote made sense enough. You distract yourself not others by playing the man, not the ball.

"What I wrote made sense enough." Well, yes, in the sense that it goes to both the aims and the problems with anti-discrimination legislation.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (1995) states as its objectives:
(a) to promote recognition and acceptance of everyone's right to equality of opportunity;
(b) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against people;
(c) to eliminate, as far as possible, sexual harassment;
(d) to provide redress for people who have been discriminated against or sexually harassed.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa1995250/s3.html

For most people living in this land of the fair go, these objectives are completely uncontroversial. The overwhelming majority of Australians supports the view that where equal rights prove difficult to guarantee, the law must step in: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/aussies-support-human-rights-act-survey-20090312-8vr7.html We have the good fortune to live in an essentially tolerant and inclusive society, and we want our laws to back this up.

However for some people the in-principle support tends to weaken if a particular minority is seen as receiving "special rights", or a hitherto unaffected group feels that they are losing some: "it is a case of "rights for me, but not for thee" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8656#137204

"In a society in which many practices are discriminatory in effect (if not in intent), anti-discrimination legislation can be expected to challenge many things that are taken for granted, the discriminatory effects of which are rarely noticed by those whom it does not impede." Beth Gaze: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2002/18.html

Privilege is inequality too, even if you don’t perceive it as privilege. While the vast majority of Australians are happy to address the inequalities that disadvantage some in our society, many are unwilling to even talk about, let alone remove, conditions that privilege some groups. As I mentioned in the article, we’re seeing this in the South Australian debate, where the churches are trying to stifle discussion about how they use the anti-discrimination exemptions. This particular privilege is indefensible, and they know it.

So thanks for the link, Cornflower. Even though Bolt's polemic is particularly unilluminating, the title he chose for his piece describes exactly the exemptions to anti-discrimination laws used by religious bodies.

Thanks Jim - I see it now. However, I suspect the "sense" you've made of Cornflower's link between Bolt's rant and your article is not quite the connection s/he had in mind.

Cornflower,until you use reference to an objective source, your comments have no validity.

woulfe

In my business I select solely according to merit. Selection criteria and job descriptions that have been massaged with affirmative action in mind or in this case to discriminate against a particular group are an abomination.

The greatest majority of the 'white men' you would support discrimination against are not in positions of power and never will be. Nor do they gain any benefit from their 'whiteness' or gender.

Further, many of the 'white men' you would discriminate against don't even have jobs yet and those you would prefer ahead of them through 'positive' discrimination haven't even arrived in the country as yet.

How is any of that a 'fair go'? "Fair' can mean many things it seems, depending on whether one is a goose or a gander and white ganders are definitely on the 'out' list.

Many of the women you would like to see in higher management jobs do not want to pursue a career. They are perfectly happy with raising a family and taking up part-time work when and where they please. Where done, cohort analysis of women entering the Commonwealth Public Service indicates that contrary to what some might believe, women progress into higher temporary and permanent jobs more quickly than men. It is not discrimination that keeps the numbers lower in the highest positions but choice.