And this is what courts will need to decide. Where religious action is counter to employment requirements.
The courts in Australia have already decided the law in relation to religious freedom. This has been established by UN human rights and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. So it is in Australian law which means it has been tested and scrutinized for its fairness and legitimacy. At this point religious organizations can choose who they have represent them.
Religious groups and employment of staff
I can see you are adamant Folau and other christians should be free to criticise his supporters providing he is using a verse of the bible. Those of us not christian think that such an attitude isn't consistent with OUR values.
This is at the heart of the matter when you say those of us who are not Christians think it is wrong. There are many Christians who do not see it that way and in even non Christians considering that the majority of people have supported Folau's right to religious freedom. The real point to the Folau case is whether Folau in quoting a bible verse was criticizing people. Considering that we have established that people may not see things the same way because they have different worldviews what may be seen as criticizing by some can be a loving act by others.
So here we have a situation where some in secular society view any bible verse that mentions people as sinners is criticizing them and wrong whereas for a Christian they believe that it is evangelizing and being loving towards others by calling out sin and its consequences. In other words they believe they are saving peoples souls. Considering that the bible has been around for a long time and is an accepted part of society and that people have known what it says and accepted that I can't see a problem.
This is the issue two different world views and the right for each to hold and express their worldviews even if that may offend some not because they are actually designed to offend people but that some may perceive it as offensive. After-all people criticize people of religion all the time as they have done to Folau with far worse words and threats than what he has been accused of. But Folau has accepted that as part of peoples right to express their views.
Other employees are troubled. Hospitals, for example, are troubled that Christians will demand the Sabbath off duty, OR islamic doctors will leave the emergency department floor because they need to pray, OR christian nurses will tell a pregnant teen the bible says she should be punished. I mean heck - they are just staying true to their religion - that's what this is all about. Religious people imposing on the rest of us.
So tell me - is the nurse within her rights to slag off the pregnant teen by quoting the bible about stoning such women?
I am not sure that things are that extreme as you say. A nurse would not be allowed to do that and even Christians accept that while on the job they conform to the codes of conduct of the organization. There is no right in religious freedom for nurses to force their religion on others. Can you give me links to these cases.
But the fact is modern employment requires certain exemptions and accommodations of peoples lifestyles such as with childcare, pregnancy and other situations and not just with religion. The question comes back to what value does society places on religion as part of being human. Academic studies show that religious belief is as much a part of a person as their physical and mental health and neglecting any of these areas will affect a persons well-being. So disallowing and ignoring the cultural and religious aspects of life will cause harm and is a denial of basic human rights as much as denying good physical health.
I can't say whether you are correct or not - but Id say your view here is common to all employers INCLUDING religious institutions. The church may now come under scrutiny for its approach to a maths teacher who loses their faith and decides they are agnostic. Right now churches argue they can do what they want in that regard
As far as RA not educating players you need to refer to the article. Even RA admitted they have handled the situation badly. As far as a religious organization having the right to sack a math teacher who becomes agnostic, the law in Australia states that a religious organization has the right to decide how it should apply its criteria to employment in upholding its religious culture. That law has been reasoned out by Australian legal system and the UN for good reason. The exemption in the discrimination act for religious organizations is not a loophole for them to discriminate but a “key feature of the architecture of discrimination law around Australia, designed to balance religious freedom rights with the right not to be unjustly discriminated against”.
Modern management theory shows that an organization works best when all its employees are signed up and invested in the organizations vision and mission statement. To do this it would mean that employees would need to be of the same faith as employer to truly be invested. The fact is religion is a matter that touches all aspects of life and not just areas directly related to religious study. Because religion is such an integral part of life and being human it would be wrong to allow the state to dictate to religious organizations what they think their organization should and should not believe and practice and would deny them the right to uphold their beliefs.
Im not sure how you can argue it was not what he intended since he has since reiterated his position clearly just to ensure we understand we are so evil we should all burn.
Well he keeps saying it - so yeah after repeating himself and then going on to talk about it on host shows and in his church - yeah I think we have it clear.
But you have misunderstood why he has reiterated his position. You have taken a skeptical and perhaps biased position that religious people may be hypocrites or religion itself is destructive and this will taint your view towards the negative. Whereas Folau has made his position clear to stand up for his belief and not back down to others trying to force him to deny and reject his beliefs.
This is even more so considering that Folau is a preacher in his church and therefore an example and leader. This is even more important considering belief is a big part of who people are and denying belief is denying and rejecting yourself. This is what I was referring to RA and players being more educated in this matter as it goes deeper than making a set of rules that are black and white in this matter.
And that's what rankles - We religious institutional employers and should be allowed to do what no other employer does [then list reasons that the rest of the community appalled by]
Do you think it fair a pregnant nun raped by a priest should be evicted from her order?
Do you think it fair that nurses should be interviewed regarding their faith when employed at a hospital?
I would like to see the original links so I can get to know the context of these situations. But as I have mentioned there are good reasons why religious organization have exemptions in certain situations. Do you think that there are situations where an organization has the right to decide who they employ?
And that's all total rubbish.
Churches DO NOT write in either their advertisement or job description, you will be fired if you decide you are gay, or fall pregnant, or lose your faith.
I never said that. I said they can put in the criteria for the job that the employee must hold their religious beliefs. That is self explanatory as far as what is considered right and wrong according to that belief and they don't have to go into detail. If they find out later that the employee does not hold and practice those beliefs, they then have grounds to dismiss them because they have not met that criteria. As explained above with how belief can influence all aspects of life this can even apply to a math teacher if the organization thinks that this is an important part of upholding their culture. You may say it is not important but others may think it is important. Who is right in these matters. I think it is important that the organization has the right to determine that as they are the ones running it.
A religious institution can put in the job description requirements for the job. If they need to teach religion then so be it.
As mentioned above beliefs affects all aspects of life and it should be up to the organization to decide how this may affect their culture. In every other aspect of life religion crosses all areas and cannot be contained to one section of life. Not just that as mentioned above with modern management theory that successful organizations need to have an overall agreement of all employees who invest in the values and mission statement of the organization whether they are a math teacher or not. So there is even non-religious support for organizations to have all their staff on the same page if they are to be successful in achieving their aims.
How many times do religions impose sexuality requirements on employees and do not pretend that its written in their job description and advertised - it is not. The fact that churches can impose discrimination when it has zero to do with their job is totally repugnant when the rest of Australia has a completely different standard.
As mentioned above they only have to state that the person must be practicing their faith which automatically means that there are certain values and standards attached to that. But think of it from their position. If their faith demands that they practice sexual morality and then allow someone who is openly promiscuous wouldn’t that create a divided culture. If the mission statement and values of the organization is to uphold their moral values would not create a double standard that could undermine any position they have taken.
We have seen this insistence from the church to separate themselves from law time and time again - it blew up in their face with child sexual abuse, but they still insist they would not report child sexual abuse if they found about it all in the confessional. Now while that issue is off-topic, it demonstrates this ongoing issue the community has with the churches that insist they should be allowed to have a separate set of behaviours that is completely out of step to law and ethics imposed on the community.
.
The child sex cases has nothing to do with Folau's situation and you are bringing in irrelevant things. I agree that there is an anti religious aspect to society but that should not take away the rights to religious freedom. These rights also apply to non-religious organizations as I have already explained with places such as women's or men's only organizations or with political parties needing like minded people.
These exemptions have been created by the UN human rights and the Australian legal system. This is based on a fair and proper procedure. It seems everyone regards and accepts the UN as the governing body of human rights and the Australian legal system so if they have decided that religions and other organizations need exemptions then that seems fair enough and for good reason. They will call out any religion who breaches human rights. As far as Australia goes it seems the other way around where the government is violating the rights of minority groups such as Indigenous people.
In summing up there are good reasons why religious freedoms is afforded to organizations who choose to only have people who are of the same faith when they employ them. This has been established by UN human rights and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. So it is in Australian law which means it has been tested and scrutinized for its fairness and legitimacy. This is because religion is recognized as a fundamental right and that belief is part of who a person is just as race and culture is.
The right of religious freedom applies to the group and is seen in the context of the group as opposed to individual rights. So, it is important that a religious organization can ensure that the culture of the group or organization is not undermined by conflicting beliefs which would affect the ability of the group to maintain their beliefs. The rights of an individual are still upheld in that they can choose to stay or leave the group. But because religious belief is an integral part of a group the groups integrity needs to be upheld above the individual otherwise there will be greater consequences for the group and thus the individuals of the group.
Religious groups and employment of staff