What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?
“The first defining moment for freedom of religion in Australia following the introduction of same-sex marriage has come from the world of professional sport.”
During the hysteria of SSM Morning Mail warned about being controlled by the Qantas sponsored PC and poofter brigade. Well … now you see that power swinging into full flight with Rugby star Israel Folau’s determination to stand by his remarks about poofs going to hell. How gracious it is that he is permitted to think such religious beliefs and even utter them but only in private and certainly not in the work place. Time was when one’s religion, political leanings and private sexual bent was taboo outside the home. But all that has changed but only if you are a poofter, like Alan Joyce who used Australia’s flagship airline to advertise his beliefs about SSM.
In Mr Joyce’s merry workplace queers were encouraged to wear split rings to advertise their sexual proclivities—brazenly in the workplace to announce their sexual aberrations to all who travelled the airline totally ignoring the revulsion felt by a majority—walk if you don’t like it attitude! Alan Joyce can use his power as CEO of our national airline to ban for life the man who shoved a lemon pie in his face from ever travelling on Qantas or any of its holdings. Is that not an abuse of power and retribution from a spiteful queer? But Folau can’t repeat what the bible might say about homosexuals in his workplace. However, outing yourself with great gay pride in any place, anywhere is a wonderful thing the LGBTIQ practitioners assure us and by law we must all accept that now. What a bunch of hypocritical bastards they are! A Malcolm Turnbull legacy for him alone to be proud of! Roll on election day!
Source: News Corp
In public arena stoush, secular lions devour Christians
Rugby star Israel Folau’s determination to stand by his remarks on social media last week has confounded the conformist politically correct huff and puff.
Aside from the hilarious prospect of taking on the entire Polynesian Christian community, to whom Folau is a hero and without whom there would be no rugby, Qantas boss Alan Joyce and other chief executives should realise that if you are going to apply pressure to conform the consciences of your fellow citizens to some commercially inspired ethics, what you reap, so you shall sow.
There are two intertwined issues here: freedom of religion and freedom of speech. For Folau’s critics it is not about freedom of religion but whether he is breaching the terms of his contract by voicing these opinions.
Such critics are often at pains to say that religious people of Folau’s or any other persuasion can have their views but they shouldn’t be allowed to voice them in public. Apparently if he had kept them to himself that might have been OK. Or is it?
Greg Baxter, a partner at public relations agency Newgate Australia, said of Folau: “I don’t think anyone says he can’t have an opinion but it is not the sort of attitude that modern rugby wants.”
So, if your attitude is not aligned with the ethics commissars of modern rugby or modern banking or modern whatever, you are not wanted.
So much for inclusion.
The Folau affair underscores the problem of when and where we can or should take our religious views into the public arena. To a certain extent the desire to keep religious beliefs out of public life is a product of pluralism, and keeping quiet about your religion in the workplace has some value in a society without an agreed religious foundation or outlook. It is also central to the dilemma faced by many people in public life with lower profile than a footballer.
A more rarefied area where religious affiliation has become a problem is in the legal world. It has proved to be a difficulty faced by Debra Mullins, a judge of the Supreme court in Queensland and a chancellor of the Anglican diocese of Brisbane.
This week Mullins delivered the Centre for Independent Studies’ Acton lecture on religion and the workplace. As she says, within any religious tradition a person’s faith is simply their life. The faith is lived, first by example. You can’t talk the talk unless you walk the walk. Second, people can do things that contribute to their faith. For most people that means doing good things, including within the workplace, whether it is in the public or private realm.
Sometimes this overlaps with the structures of religion within the church. This can be difficult, as Mullins has found.
Mullins sometimes gives advice on legal matters to the church. In February, she and another judge, David Thomas, were criticised for their roles by a retired judge and legal ethicist, James Thomas. The headline on an ABC story about the matter said “Doubts raised about Queensland judges’ links to Anglican Church”.
This stems from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse, and the fact the Anglican Brisbane archdiocese had more complaints than anywhere else.
However, Mullins does not sit on cases that deal with church matters. Bias is not an issue. Rather, the criticism was that having a judge give legal advice to the church was “intimidating” for victims, who would be “uncomfortable” about judges giving confidential legal advice in a private capacity. Mullins has been accused of lacking compassion. The outrageous assumption is that she may have an “attitude problem”.
Mullins’s response is, as a practising Anglican, she simply is doing her best as a Christian and that includes giving advice to the church: “In the last 20 years or so, I have been privileged to serve on various committees with members of the church who use their talent and skills in furthering the good works undertaken by the church. For lawyers, it is natural that they are interested in contributing in roles such as chancellor or as a member of a legal committee where their legal training assists in navigating the jungle of church legislation.
“Accountants are in demand for every committee and audit committees. There are many committees that are suited to health professionals, educators, builders, architects, engineers, and people with common sense and life skills. It is a way to help others consistent with Christian beliefs. That a person of faith undertakes roles within the church for which the person is qualified is, in my view, endeavouring to live a Christian life.”
However, if one is a Christian judge in this situation, even the “taint” of being associated with the church seems too much for some, and legal ethicists are demanding people such as Mullins give up their roles in the church. How long before she and others are forced from their public role as a judge?
Mullins cites Sir Ronald Wilson: “Asked about whether his Christian faith influenced him as a justice of the High Court, he answered no. He believed that his integrity as a judge depended on him reaching a decision based on the law and precedent, even if that went against his personal views, which were significantly influenced by his Christian beliefs.”
In a legal system based on Judeo-Christian ethical principles, Wilson’s integrity as a judge and a Christian would demand no less. However, as found by many Christians, not the least of whom was Sir Thomas More, in totalitarian regimes if you can’t do the job as a Christian you can’t do the job. It seems that in the matter of religious freedom, the world of rugby and the upper reaches of the legal world are not so different.