First-World Persecution: Implications for Moral Theology

[The Liturgist]

Qantas is a private company, and it can formulate policies as it pleases regarding who it will sponsor. That is, after all, part of the rights of private ownership. It would be wrong for our government to Legislate to attempt to force a private Airline to sponsor anybody who expresses views or opinions or intentions to act in ways that are contrary to the policies of the airline. It could be argued but probably unsuccessfully, that the airline, because it is providing a paid for service to the public, should make its sponsorships equally available to all persons, regardless of their stated views. But I do not believe any Australian government would be prepared to write and pass such legislation. In fact, I think it is impossible that such a law would pass the Australian Parliament. Given the remarks I've just made, I do not agree with the proposition that you put forward. But I do agree fully that you are free to withhold your fees and fares from Qantas if you wish to; by all means find another airline. Perhaps you will find one that would not take similar action to Qantas.

It is worth calling to mind that Qantas' action against Israel Falau was based not on his being a Christian, but on his anti-gay rights stance and anti-gay statements made in public. Qantas indicated that it did not wish to be associated with such views. And so, it said it would withdraw its sponsorship. I do not know if they actually did withdraw sponsorship. There was a court case between Israel Falau and the Rugby League, but I am not sure how Israel did in it.

PS: I do not see how withdrawal of sponsorship could constitute persecution by any stretch of the imagination. Sponsorships are financial arrangements voluntarily entered into They are not legislated requirements. They do not have legal repercussions. But there are financial repercussions, such as of loss of sponsorship if the sponsored person does something that the sponsor does not like.

The problem is that Israel Fahu was persecuted for expressing scriptural warnings, taken directly from the Epistles of St. Paul, concerning the spiritual danger homosexuals are in, which constituted protected speech, and for this reason he got a cash payout from the Rugby League, which they would not have had to make had they not persecuted a player for teaching Scriptural doctrine at the instructions of the CEO of QANTAS, who regards it as his duty to use the power he has running what has been, since the demise of Ansett Australia, an extremely powerful airline, to advocate for increased tolerance of what is, according to Biblical teachings, and also any official documents of your church which touch on the issue with the notable exception of Fiducia Supplicans, sexual misconduct.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The problem is that Israel Fahu was persecuted for expressing scriptural warnings, taken directly from the Epistles of St. Paul, concerning the spiritual danger homosexuals are in, which constituted protected speech, and for this reason he got a cash payout from the Rugby League, which they would not have had to make had they not persecuted a player for teaching Scriptural doctrine at the instructions of the CEO of QANTAS, who regards it as his duty to use the power he has running what has been, since the demise of Ansett Australia, an extremely powerful airline, to advocate for increased tolerance of what is, according to Biblical teachings, and also any official documents of your church which touch on the issue with the notable exception of Fiducia Supplicans, sexual misconduct.

Israel Falau was not persecuted. He lost some money; the rugby league took action against him for expressing views that are contrary to the league's official policies. That isn't persecution. Israel Falau lives in Australia I don't think that "protected speech" is a category you'll find in Australian law. The truth is that Australia has an anti-discrimination act which makes it a crime or at the very least, a civil offence, to speak in ways that vilify religious minorities and other minorities, including LGBTIQ+ people. The reason the law exists is to prevent people from coming to courts and making a defence by saying, "he tried to come on to me" or some other similar accusation when they have beat somebody to a pulp and hospitalised them, perhaps even permanently harming them. Such violent acts are criminal in Australia and rightly so.

 

[The Liturgist]

Israel Falau was not persecuted. He lost some money; the rugby league took action against him for expressing views that are contrary to the league's official policies. That isn't persecution.

Financial discrimination is persecution.

Israel Falau lives in Australia I don't think that "protected speech" is a category you'll find in Australian law.

Isn’t Australia a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Which expressly guarantees Freedom of Expression? He obviously did not commit hate speech, considering he was not prosecuted, and furthermore was able to secure an undisclosed payout in the course of a lawsuit, and I would note that in the UK and Australia, the losing party pays.

The truth is that Australia has an anti-discrimination act which makes it a crime or at the very least, a civil offence, to speak in ways that vilify religious minorities and other minorities, including LGBTIQ+ people.

Clearly he did not commit that offense, or if he did, all churches in Australia including any traditional Roman Catholic churches are in peril, since St. Paul expressly warns that homosexuals are in a dangerous spiritual status. If someone can be persecuted for saying that, which has happened in Canada but not in Australia to my knowledge, that is a gross infringement of the freedom of religion, also guaranteed under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and represents persecution of the entire Christian community.

However since there are several Australian churches which actively teach that homosexuality is sinful, including the Orthodox Churches and at least one Anglican Archdiocese, and since he was not prosecuted, my guess is that your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

Such violent acts are criminal in Australia and rightly so.

In the US we also have hate crime legislation, which does protect homosexuals against violent attacks, which is proper, because we cannot persuade homosexuals to repent of their sin if they are murdered, for example, by Islamic fundamentalists, who are known for engaging in such violence. But this whole argument of yours is tangential, a red herring, irrelevant, nicht anwendbar (inapplicable), since no violence was perpetrated by Israel Falau. If he had done that, which he hasn’t, he would have been prosecuted, and myself and others would not be aghast at how he is being treated.

Although I am surprised by your apparent opposition to individuals quoting established Christian and Roman Catholic doctrine on this issue, fiducia supplicans not withstanding.

Needless to say, I have expressly cited as an example of persecution the unjustifiable deposition of Bishop Strickland despite an extreme lack of schismatic actions on his part, apparently just because of his conservatism (he had not even engaged in the level of protest against Pope Francis we have seen from bishops such as Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Raymond Cardinal Burke, and others), given this gross infringement on traditional Roman Catholic sexual morality as expressed by Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and all of their predecessors.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Financial discrimination is persecution.

Financial consequences for breach of contract is not persecution

Isn’t Australia a signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Which expressly guarantees Freedom of Expression? He obviously did not commit hate speech, considering he was not prosecuted, and furthermore was able to secure an undisclosed payout in the course of a lawsuit, and I would note that in the UK and Australia, the losing party pays.

Out of court settlements don't really have winners and losers.

Clearly he did not commit that offense, or if he did, all churches in Australia including any traditional Roman Catholic churches are in peril

It will be worth your while to familiarise yourself with what the anti-discrimination law in Australia says.

the Anglican Archdiocese of Australia

There is an archdiocese of Sydney There is no archdiocese of Australia.

 

[The Liturgist]

Financial consequences for breach of contract is not persecution

It is if the contract constrains his religious freedom.

Out of court settlements don't really have winners and losers.

Nonsense. The majority of damages paid out in civil lawsuits occur via confidential out of court settlements. Rather, everyone loses if a case goes to trial, given the expense of a trial for the defense and the stress it causes the prosecution. I have won several civil lawsuits in my life, for personal injuries of myself and other relatives (for example, in one case, my mother was poisoned by milk which had been contaminated by e. Coli bacteria) and every single victory was in the form of an ample out of court settlement. Now these lawsuits invariably take time to prosecute, on average, three to four years, and can involve depositions, and the strength of one’s position before a trial generally determines the amount of a payoff, but it was worth it in each case, and fortunately in the US personal injury lawyers will work on the basis of a contingent commission.

It will be worth your while to familiarise yourself with what the anti-discrimination law in Australia says.

I don’t see why, since I am not a cleric in Australia, and also I normally don’t preach on this issue unless it comes up in the lectionary. I would rather support traditional Christians in Australia from afar.

However it is obviously the case that this law is not impacting Australian churches, since I know of several which actively do preach about the sinful nature of homosexuality on a regular basis. In Canada, traditional churches have gotten into trouble, but in Australia this hasn’t been as much of an issue.

Liberal politicians also are likely going to be reticent in some countries to persecute churches, since a double standard has obviously been created in Europe since Muslims have gotten away with remarks that have gotten Christian clergy into trouble, and unlike Christians, Muslims are known for engaging in violence against homosexuals, which is of course wrong and despicable.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is if the contract constrains his religious freedom.

No contract would have legal standing if it attempted to constrain somebody from holding religious views. Religious views are protected under the law. Israel Falau's sponsorship contract did not make any attempt to constrain his religion.

 

[PloverWing]

Specifically, I would like to review any instances you have heard of involving the potential or actual persecution of Christians for their beliefs, whether by online groups, businesses or other organizations, governments or their own churches for teaching and practicing traditional Christianity.

Online groups are, I think, a universe unto themselves. Something seems to happen to people when they get to hide behind a computer screen, and the Internet is full of flame wars and even violent threats that happen for even the smallest of provocations. So I'm going to set that one to the side as its own problem.

As to the rest: Within churches, we have various disputes, and things can be bad for whoever is on the losing side of the dispute. (So, for example, my church had a time where things were hard for women seeking ordination, and then we had a time where things were hard for bishops who refuse to recognize female priests.) And we have cases like BJU, in which church policy clashes with state civil rights laws. But I haven't seen any of this rise to the level of imprisoning people for worshipping in a church or for identifying as Christians, so I don't think it qualifies as persecution in the same sense as was seen under, say, the Roman Empire.

I also have a particularly complex issue of moral theology I would like to discuss, ideally if someone happens to post a similar case they are familiar with.

Can you describe this issue of moral theology? I'd be interested in the discussion, even if I haven't seen a similar case.

 

[The Liturgist]

No contract would have legal standing if it attempted to constrain somebody from holding religious views. Religious views are protected under the law. Israel Falau's sponsorship contract did not make any attempt to constrain his religion.

Since he obtained a settlement, apparently this contract was violated. Again I should think Catholics would be celebrating this, since the official position of the Catholic Church is, for the moment at least, fiducia supplicans not withstanding, that sodomy is immoral and homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered.

 

[The Liturgist]

Online groups are, I think, a universe unto themselves. Something seems to happen to people when they get to hide behind a computer screen, and the Internet is full of flame wars and even violent threats that happen for even the smallest of provocations. So I'm going to set that one to the side as its own problem.

As to the rest: Within churches, we have various disputes, and things can be bad for whoever is on the losing side of the dispute. (So, for example, my church had a time where things were hard for women seeking ordination, and then we had a time where things were hard for bishops who refuse to recognize female priests.) And we have cases like BJU, in which church policy clashes with state civil rights laws. But I haven't seen any of this rise to the level of imprisoning people for worshipping in a church or for identifying as Christians, so I don't think it qualifies as persecution in the same sense as was seen under, say, the Roman Empire.



Can you describe this issue of moral theology? I'd be interested in the discussion, even if I haven't seen a similar case.

When a similar issue comes up, or if I resolve the issue, I will describe it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Since he obtained a settlement, apparently this contract was violated.

The sponsorship contract was with Qantas, there was no court case regarding it.
The court case was between the rugby league and Israel Falau.
Your post appears to be confusing to separate things.

Again I should think Catholics would be celebrating this, since the official position of the Catholic Church is, for the moment at least, fiducia supplicans not withstanding, that sodomy is immoral and homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered.

Catholics will never celebrate bigoted speech aimed at causing harm to minorities.