Righteous Indignation

Wherein Religious Institutions are examined in regards to our laws.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6104482/church-can-reject-gays-single-mums/

This link will take you, oh adventurous web-viewing person, to a news story detailing how, in a Western world, a law is being passed to allow religious institutions the right to discriminate against those who 'undermine' their belief systems.

If however you can't be bothered to view it, (and lets face it, it's a pretty banal example of journalism) the brief gist of the tale is that in the state of Victoria in the South East of Terra Australis some religious groups have recently gotten their luxurious robes into somewhat of a knot due to the fact that they are enforced by law to consider employing homosexuals or indeed mothers out of wed-lock even though they are seen as being contrary to their belief system.

So, in a display of righteous indignation they took their holy crusade to the state government and petitioned for their right to discriminate according to the tenants of their belief system. The Government, and this is the part that truly astounds me, the GOVERNMENT then bartered with the religious lobby groups and came up with a fabulous compromise:

In the State of Victoria, it will be perfectly lawful for religious institutions to discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation or practices if they are considered to be in contradiction to the values and morals of their religion. BUT they can not discriminate according to Race, gender, age, religion or disability.

Well, isn't that nice?

I'm so glad that the State Government managed to roll up their sleeves and demonstrate to all and sundry the sheer awesome might of their power-brokering skills!

My question is, surely, an institution, religious or otherwise, that is discriminatory in any way, is in contravention to our 'fair go' policy that is now written into the Australian Constitution. Doesn't that make, ANY institution that says 'you can be employed, and you can be employed, but YOU can not be employed because you're gay/lesbian/unmarried and sexually active' unconstitutional?

Why is the government brokering to draw a fine line in the sand as to what is acceptable discrimination and what is not? And why are we not asking these religious institutions to explain their discriminatory and unconstitutional tenants of belief?

When we discuss multiculturalism and immigration, there is an understanding that anyone who comes to our great empty land of dust and poorly performed teen soap operas must temper their beliefs from their previous place of residence in order to live in accordance with Australia's values of mateship, a fair go, and other flag-waving generic terms which basically imply a non-discriminatory culture etc.

Indeed, Islam seems to regularly come under fire in our fabulously moralistic media for not falling in line with our Australian liberalism and gender equality. Is such tongue-clucking and finger pointing only reserved for those Australian's who aren't white then?

Religious institutions regularly need to liberalise and temper their extremities when coming to Australia in order to fit in with our laws. We see it, in our Imperialistically arrogant way as being in the name of progress. ("Oh yes, I understand that this is considered sinful in your back-water nation, but you also wipe your bottom with your hand. See, here in a civilised country, things have become much more evolved, so you'll need to change a few things if you intend to live here. Do try and get with the programme...") For instance, the extremities of Islam are tempered here as being about personal choice regarding burqa's etc. The caste system of India is tempered to fit in according to our anti-discrimination laws. It is unlawful in Australia for an Israeli jew to deny a job to a palestinian due to the tensions back in their respective homelands.

But apparently, our own religious institutions are above needing to 'get with the programme'. They are above needing to 'evolve with the times'.

ALL religious institutions need to be held to account for their beliefs. And if they are discriminatory, in the ways described by the federal anti-discrimination laws, then they should be considered an unlawful institution.

End of Story.


Christian Bigotry, anti-gay, pro-gay, multiculturalism, anti-christian, anti-religious, protest,