Little faith in new government laws on religious discrimination | The Examiner
comment, opinion,
The federal government’s attempt to clean up marriage equality laws makes the national plebiscite look a lot like the easy part. Proposed religious discrimination laws have sparked an internal row within the Coalition as a timid Labor opposition awaits an inquiry into the laws, due next month. I suspect both government and opposition will be quietly relieved if Parliament runs out of time to deal with it before the election and kicks in the next Parliament. The marriage plebiscite was a simple yes or no. But, religious discrimination reforms would test a theological scholar, let alone the rest of us. Prime Minister Scott Morrison plays a leading role in passing the proposals, but he is probably the worst advocate for highly sensitive religious reform because he is a Pentecostal believer. In an explanation of the postage stamp, the government attempts to codify protection against discrimination for believers while protecting the right not to hold a religious belief. It says a statement of belief is not considered discriminatory as long as it does not threaten, intimidate, harass or defame or is considered malicious. The government gave in on some initial positions to appease critics. A provision to protect a person from dismissal for expressing religious beliefs, as in the Israel Folau case, has been removed. Remember how Folau was sacked as a wallaby rugby player for citing the biblical damnation of homosexuals among other statements. The government also removed a provision that would have allowed medical workers to refuse treatment based on their religious beliefs. Everyone has an opinion in Parliament. It’s a social quagmire, a clichéd puzzle where you’re damned whether you do it or not, and where you can’t please everyone all the time, or even some of the time. The proposals infuriate states because some provisions conflict with state anti-discrimination laws, and where federal law conflicts with state law, the proposed federal law will always prevail. I don’t know why all the fuss. It is easy to protect religious regardless of their faith. You have just prohibited any action or statement that discriminates against a believer. You forbid the defamation of people, whether Muslim, Hindu, Christian, non-religious, agnostic, homosexual or atheist. The proposed bill seeks to legislate protections for religious beliefs and activities on the same level as those already provided by the federal anti-discrimination law, regarding discrimination on the basis of age, disability, sex, orientation sexuality, gender identity, intersex status, race, color, national or ethnic origin, or immigration status. The reforms do not yet prevent a Christian school from favoring teacher candidates who share the school’s religious values or even firing teachers who reveal or demonstrate that they are homosexual or belong to another faith. It doesn’t officially deal with students either, but I’m sure no government would be brave enough to support a law that expelled students for what they believed or didn’t believe. I’m tempted to object to a religious school that only requires teachers of the same faith, but how would you police anyway? A school could vomit a book of why it chose a teacher over other applicants. Teachers are generally coerced or prevented from promoting their own socio-political views in the classroom, so I don’t see a problem with gay teachers or teachers of other faiths working in a Christian or Muslim school. Call me naive, but no school should be allowed by law to purge teachers or students for their beliefs. It’s a bad look if a religious school fires a teacher or expels a student because of their beliefs. Where the hell is the love in that? Let’s face it. A gay teacher or an atheist teacher in a Christian school is a much safer prospect than the thousands of pedophile teachers and clergy who have destroyed the lives of young students over the years, especially in so-called Christian schools. I think it comes down to the Australian spirit of equality and fairness. The role of governments is to balance the rights of believers and non-believers. We shouldn’t have discriminatory laws, period. The LGBTIQ community deserves as much respect and protection from active discrimination as people of faith. It is anti-Christian to support the defamation of people based on their beliefs or sexual preferences. It’s even worse for religious organizations to ostracize people of other faiths. Religious organizations that reject people because they are of another religion are in my opinion not a religion but a house of fanatics. Somewhere in this complex and difficult debate are the concepts of love and tolerance. These are concepts that can promote Australia as a refuge from the ills of an increasingly belligerent planet.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/32UQzXcwHuv6EtT6StXJwQK/619605f7-789d-4866-a57e-6118dff33c18.jpg/r0_1088_5000_3913_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
ALL CREATED EQUAL: Rather than implementing anti-discrimination laws that allow discrimination, two concepts should be encouraged, promoted and embraced above all else: love and tolerance. Photo: Shutterstock
The federal government’s attempt to clean up marriage equality laws makes the national plebiscite look a lot like the easy part.
Proposed religious discrimination laws have sparked an internal row within the Coalition as a timid Labor opposition awaits an inquiry into the laws, due next month.
I suspect both government and opposition will be quietly relieved if Parliament runs out of time to deal with it before the election and kicks in the next Parliament.
The marriage plebiscite was a simple yes or no. But, religious discrimination reforms would test a theological scholar, let alone the rest of us.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison plays a leading role in passing the proposals, but he is probably the worst advocate for highly sensitive religious reform because he is a Pentecostal believer.
In an explanation of the postage stamp, the government attempts to codify protection against discrimination for believers while protecting the right not to hold a religious belief.
It says a statement of belief is not considered discriminatory as long as it does not threaten, intimidate, harass or defame or is considered malicious.
The government gave in on some initial positions to appease critics.
A provision to protect a person from dismissal for expressing religious beliefs, as in the Israel Folau case, has been removed.
Remember how Folau was sacked as a wallaby rugby player for citing the biblical damnation of homosexuals among other statements.
The government also removed a provision that would have allowed medical workers to refuse treatment based on their religious beliefs.
Everyone has an opinion in Parliament.
It’s a social quagmire, a clichéd puzzle where you’re damned whether you do it or not, and where you can’t please everyone all the time, or even some of the time.
The proposals infuriate states because some provisions conflict with state anti-discrimination laws, and where federal law conflicts with state law, the proposed federal law will always prevail.
I don’t know why all the fuss. It is easy to protect religious regardless of their faith.
You have just prohibited any action or statement that discriminates against a believer.
You forbid the defamation of people, whether Muslim, Hindu, Christian, non-religious, agnostic, homosexual or atheist.
The proposed bill seeks to legislate protections for religious beliefs and activities on the same level as those already provided by the federal anti-discrimination law, regarding discrimination on the basis of age, disability, sex, orientation sexuality, gender identity, intersex status, race, color, national or ethnic origin, or immigration status.
The reforms do not yet prevent a Christian school from favoring teacher candidates who share the school’s religious values or even firing teachers who reveal or demonstrate that they are homosexual or belong to another faith.
It doesn’t officially deal with students either, but I’m sure no government would be brave enough to support a law that expelled students for what they believed or didn’t believe.
I’m tempted to object to a religious school that only requires teachers of the same faith, but how would you police anyway?
A school could vomit a book of why it chose a teacher over other applicants.
Teachers are generally coerced or prevented from promoting their own socio-political views in the classroom, so I don’t see a problem with gay teachers or teachers of other faiths working in a Christian or Muslim school.
Call me naive, but no school should be allowed by law to purge teachers or students for their beliefs.
It’s a bad look if a religious school fires a teacher or expels a student because of their beliefs.
Where the hell is the love in that?
Let’s face it. A gay teacher or an atheist teacher in a Christian school is a much safer prospect than the thousands of pedophile teachers and clergy who have destroyed the lives of young students over the years, especially in so-called Christian schools.
I think it comes down to the Australian spirit of equality and fairness.
The role of governments is to balance the rights of believers and non-believers.
We shouldn’t have discriminatory laws, period.
The LGBTIQ community deserves as much respect and protection from active discrimination as people of faith.
It is anti-Christian to support the defamation of people based on their beliefs or sexual preferences.
It’s even worse for religious organizations to ostracize people of other faiths.
Religious organizations that reject people because they are of another religion are in my opinion not a religion but a house of fanatics.
Somewhere in this complex and difficult debate are the concepts of love and tolerance.
These are concepts that can promote Australia as a refuge from the ills of an increasingly belligerent planet.
- Barry Prismall is a former associate editor of The Examiner and Liberal adviser