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 se
ems 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,
Hmm - I don't entirely agree! I think it all comes down to the nature of the discrimination. If we are speaking of a church that is excluding homosexuals from their congregation, then you are preaching to the choir: I concur wholeheartedly. But if we are speaking of a church that is excluding homosexuals from the clergy, then I have less of a problem with it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think their perspective is obnoxious, but it's also part of who they are. Legislating against them couldn't possibly change them: the change has to come from within their own community.
My Dear Mr Holloway!
ReplyDeleteAlways a pleasure to hear from you! In this context, we are speaking of a religious institution demanding the right to not employ homosexuals or 'loose-women' in the branches of their institution that are in fact businesses. So we're talking Private Schools, we're talking charity stores and employment centres.
But, what could possibly be the problem with have homosexuals in the clergy? I can think of no such good reason to do this, other than an adherence to a system of morals that is out-dated and prejudiced, and as such the system needs to be adapted to meet with the nations laws regarding discrimination or else it ought to be deemed an unlawful system.
The only possible exception to this rule I could foresee would be some sort of sect that had a sexual element to it (something tantric-y) revolving around a heterosexual sex act, in which case I couldn't see many homosexuals lining up to apply anyway!
We are however, agreed with the idea that they are obnoxious.
But simply saying the Government should not legislate against their obnoxious policies because it won't work is like saying violence against women is rife in this nation, so why bother with laws against domestic abuse?
Sometimes, the action is as much about the making of the statement that this is considered unacceptable, as it is the actual efficacy of the action in itself.
I agree with you then, but only to an extent. I think that religions that institutionalise domestic abuse (I shan't name one, but you'll not have to think hard) run up against the law in this country and are forced to take scriptural passages either with a grain of salt, or indicative of a specific situation that, to all intents and purposes, no longer exists. The same would go for other heinous crimes, like female genital mutilation, castration of homosexuals, burning of "witches" and stoning of blasphemers.
ReplyDeleteDoes it also extend to hiring and firing? This is where things get complex, but only because employers have had their hands tied in recent years and are now expected to be accountable for their employees. Fifty years ago, refusing to hire somebody for being gay was not illegal. Not because being gay was illegal, but because employers didn't need to provide a reason for their refusal. Now that they do need to do so, prohibiting somebody on the basis of gender, preference, religion or race (etc) is against the law.
This also opens a can of worms with private schools. Can (or should) they be allowed to refuse admission to students with the wrong religion? Can a Catholic school deny Muslims? A Jewish school, Anglicans? I don't think this is so clear-cut an issue.
I agree, in any case, that the law should prohibit faith-based organisations from refusing to hire somebody on the grounds that they are gay, but I still hold that the law cannot touch the running of the actual houses of worship. Just as the government has no right to decide who people marry, they should also have no right to decide how people's religions work as well.
Unless these institutions are already breaking the law, any decisions that they have regarding membership must remain their own. When I vote for the government, I don't do so with the intention that they will have something to say about the running of the synagogue at which I work. Despite it constituting a very liberal, all-inclusive and progressive environment, I might have voted for somebody else were I to assume that they would do so.
My Dear Mr Holloway,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, we are referring to the hiring and firing of staff. Which quite frankly should never be considered outside of legal terms. If you're working for Anglicare, Saint Vincent DePaul's or or some other business that functions as a seperate arm of the church.
I do see your point with private schools. Indeed the religious private school is the last vestige or discrimination in the work place. Obviously not to race or gender but definitely with sexual orientation and religious beliefs. For instance, I personally am incapable of getting a job in the majority of Christian Schools that I lived nearby simply because I require at least one reference from a priest. But as a son of a mildly-spirtualist/non practising anglican and an atheist father, getting a reference from a priest is simply impossible, and as my own faith, which might I point point out, lead to comparitive studies with the Christian ethos and mythos (and secretly I think I could lay money on the table that my knowledge of Christianity is probably better than at least 30% of their current staff) but alas does not have a registered priest as an authority, this situation was made even more difficult.
That being said I do know of a Hindu working at a Catholic school who provided all the correct documentation which is a fabulous moment in tolerance. The education sector is a difficult one. But might I suggest, the reason being, is that the majority of these institutions are built with the purpose of educating (and some would argue indoctrinating) our young in how to live as a Catholic, Jew, Protestant, Muslim etc. With that in mind, written into the employment selection criteria in invariably a clause that the applicant must be able to uphold and represent the tenants of faith in order to be a successful employee of an institution designed for this purpose. Now this becomes a little murky because there is no real difference between a selection criteria that is aimed at biasing towards people of the appropriate religion and outright religious discrimination. And yet, shouldn't these institutions be allowed to employ the best people to do the jobs that these institutions are designed for?
Some would argue (and I can think of one mutual acquainted Valkyrie in particular) that all such institutions have as the very premise for their existence a discriminatory and somewhat sinister agenda. -But that really is a different debate to be had elsewhere.
But your argument regarding private schools is about religious discrimination inside a religious institution. I'm talking here, more of religion-sanctioned discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or practise which is already illegal according to our federal anti-discrimination laws. At this point rather than quibbling as to whether or not the government should sanction such an action, my argument is that the focus is completely in the wrong area and that we need to be discussing as to why these institutions are allowed such discriminatory attitudes simply because they are established and considered the 'norm' in our society.
In regards to the extent that the government has on the running of a synagogue, I think what's important is that the synagogue comprises of people. And the Government is elected to legislate how people are to and not to live in Australia. So obviously how the Jewish faith/tradition dictates how a synagogue is run should not be the concern of the government unless it contravenes Australian laws. Which can only be a good thing when we look at such examples that you brought up in regards to female circumcision and other such human-rights violations that are sanctioned in some religious institutions of the world.
And if its a good thing for the Temple, the Mosque and the Centre then surely it must be good enough for the Cathedral, the Church and the Synagogue as well.
Speaking as an employee of both the Anglican and Catholic Churches in the UK for fifteen years (in the capacity of organist, not clergy – God forbid!), if the Church passes a law allowing discrimination in the employment of homosexuals then it will have a massive re-recruitment drive on its hands! Judging by the numbers of clearly gay clergy that I have encountered during my travels, there will only be myself, the Mother’s Union and one or two choirboys left in the aisles!
ReplyDeleteMr Dear Ms Muse,
ReplyDeleteHow nice to hear from you! You are quite right of course! But humorously enough, the clergy are safe due to the fact that although they may appear as gay as a basket of kittens they are not in fact gay due to the fact that they are not actually performing the act!
I think, in short the issue is: Homosexuality is fine, as long as you resist the temptation. Otherwise, go away!
Thanks for that insight! I always thought that that older chap who rocks up to the churches and prepares the flowers was a bit sus. (there's only one guy who does this. He appears in all churches, kind of like Santa with Christmas, but a lot more gay)