Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Paidiske]

And I was born under apartheid. I know the law doesn't always get it right.

But I agree with the principle that liberty can and should be circumscribed for the public good.

And we're not talking about the US in this case...

 

[Occams Barber]

You are also doing some goalpost shifting in terms of not identifying your change in context from the context of the thread.

I realise we're off topic but we got here in a sensible way.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

So if a statement is not true it should be automatically regarded as inoffensive?

If I announce publicly that women are inferior to men will this be regarded as inoffensive by women because it isn't true?
If I announce that you're a child molester (and you're not) will you not be offended?

I think you need to think this one through.
OB

You probably need to think through your position, because you're lumping oranges with orangutans.

Now, at some point an untrue statement can turn into slander or libel--and those already have legal recourse. But that has more involved than merely being offended.

If a strident feminist announced publically, "All men are rapists"-- I might be offended, but there is no recourse. If she announced "RD Kirk raped me," then I have recourse.

The question becomes whether the government (or anyone else) should necessarily take action over everything that offends you.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a cynical view.

That's not cynical, that's realistic. People have been criticizing mob rule since the Greeks. What you are describing sounds more like a mob deciding that we have no natural rights except what society negotiates.

In this case, since we know the harm that hate speech does (and yes, I'm going to say that broadcasting statements that whole groups are "going to hell" is a form of hate speech) I see it more as the law protecting the lamb.

I'm sure the lamb would rather have provisions for its safety in the rule of law rather than merely having other lambs not saying mean things about them.

 

[Paidiske]

That's not cynical, that's realistic. People have been criticizing mob rule since the Greeks. What you are describing sounds more like a mob deciding that we have no natural rights except what society negotiates.

I do think our rights are socially negotiated. We have international agreements and such, but even they're the product of much negotiation.

I don't think anyone can stand up and unilaterally declare "I have a right to x!" In a community, the community has to agree.

I'm sure the lamb would rather have provisions for its safety in the rule of law rather than merely having the approval of the wolves.

Yes... that was my point?

 

[FireDragon76]

Back when I was a kid, it was for the public good that I was not allowed into the Esquire movie theater.

And it was also self-evidently true to most of the population in some pats of the US, in fact it some cases you could be considered a kook, a crazy, or an agitator if you thought otherwise.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think anyone can stand up and unilaterally declare "I have a right to x!" In a community, the community has to agree.

That's why we have courts decide those things based on constitutional principles, and not partisan politics. Liberty should never be up for a vote.

 

[FireDragon76]

So if a statement is not true it should be automatically regarded as inoffensive?

If I announce publicly that women are inferior to men will this be regarded as inoffensive by women because it isn't true?
If I announce that you're a child molester (and you're not) will you not be offended?

I think you need to think this one through.
OB

People choose to be offended by stuff they know is imaginary. Otherwise, if you really didn't believe in Hell, you would not find it offensive. You'ld merely find it bizarre.

 

[Occams Barber]

Any private organization in the US can do the same thing. Or, for that matter, exclude women entirely. Or minorities.

Can private organisations practice gender discrimination in their employment practices in the US? If so it is very different from this country.

Actually, churches in the US are taxed on profits (as "profit" is defined by the IRS). The only difference between churches and non-profit organizations is that a church that is demonstrably a bona-fide "church" (as opposed to a "religious organization") doesn't have to file as a "non-profit organization."

Not exactly. A church doesn't have to file as a non-profit only if their activities demonstrate--to the satisfaction of the IRS--that it is a bona fide church as opposed to a mere "religious institution."
There are many "ministries" that are not bona fide churches, just "religious institutions" wholly or predominantly. Those would not past IRS muster and--most importantly--their donations would not be tax deductions for their donors.

Australian churches are tax exempt.

As far as the US goes I suspect you're confusing the issue with technicalities.
This is a quote from ProCon.org confirming that US churches are effectively tax exempt:

US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
​

OB

 

[FireDragon76]

I once had some Muslims tell me I was doing something wrong I thought was perfectly innocent. Was I offend? No, because I knew they were concerned about me. At most, I was sad that I made them uncomfortable and that we probably couldn't be friends anymore. But I wasn't offended.

I don't buy this idea that care equals offense. That is just rhetoric to make certain kinds of speech unacceptable. At least be honest about it.

 

[Occams Barber]

People choose to be offended by stuff they know is imaginary. Otherwise, if you really didn't believe in Hell, you would not find it offensive. You'ld merely find it bizarre.

I don't need to believe in Hell. The declaration that "you will go to Hell" impugns my character. It suggests that I have done something wrong. The insult isn't in the 'Hell' bit, it's in the underlying accusation.

We all get offended by untruthful accusations.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

Can private organisations practice gender discrimination in their employment practices in the US? If so it is very different from this country.

Do Australian men's rugby teams have female players?

Australian churches are tax exempt.

As far as the US goes I suspect you're confusing the issue with technicalities.
This is a quote from ProCon.org confirming that US churches are effectively tax exempt:

US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
​

OB

What the US government acknowledged early on: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

If a church ("church" as determined by the IRS, not a mere "religious organization") makes what the IRS considers a "profit," it must pay income taxes on that profit. "Non-profit" does not mean it's not taxed on its profits, it means it can't make a profit or it will be taxed. The Boy Scouts of America, for instance, does not make a profit, as determined by the IRS. That's not just a technicality (at least not any more than the First Amendment itself is a technicality).

 

[RDKirk]

I don't need to believe in Hell. The declaration that "you will go to Hell" impugns my character. It suggests that I have done something wrong. The insult isn't in the 'Hell' bit, it's in the underlying accusation.

We all get offended by untruthful accusations.
OB

There is a difference between an imaginary accusation and an untruthful accusation.

Reminds me of the joke about the American diplomat who got into a verbal battle with a Soviet diplomat back in the 50s.

They started politely, but the situation became heated and they began throwing personal insults at one another.

The American got so riled that he finally shouted, "Your mother wears army shoes!"

The Soviet looked puzzled and said, "What's wrong with that?"

 

[Occams Barber]

Now, at some point an untrue statement can turn into slander or libel--and those already have legal recourse. But that has more involved than merely being offended.

If a strident feminist announced publically, "All men are rapists"-- I might be offended, but there is no recourse. If she announced "RD Kirk raped me," then I have recourse.

We weren't talking about recourse. The issue was whether an untrue statement can be offensive.

You said (above) that if there is no recourse you might be offended but, if you need to take recourse, you're obviously offended. So in both cases - you're offended. QED

The question becomes whether the government (or anyone else) should necessarily take action over everything that offends you.

No this was never the question. The OP dealt with a contractual breach by Folau. It involved no government intervention.

I have not suggested government intervention. The most I've suggested is that society (not government) may push back against religious privilege and/or religious hate speech.
OB

 

[JackRT]

To be honest, we probably prioritise the public good over "liberty." (See gun control as a prime example).

Overall, I'm not uncomfortable with that.

A Canadian historian once commented that if an American and a Canadian were each asked want they considered to be the best sort of governance the American would say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while the Canadian would say "peace, order and good government".

 

[Occams Barber]

Do Australian men's rugby teams have female players?

Nice deflection. Obviously there are some jobs which are gender specific for good reason. In Australian law these exceptions must be justified with a rational argument. This doesn't explain why some (most?) Christian denominations get to discriminate by running an all male leadership (i.e., priests, ministers, pastors etc.) team.

What the US government acknowledged early on: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

If a church ("church" as determined by the IRS, not a mere "religious organization") makes what the IRS considers a "profit," it must pay income taxes on that profit. "Non-profit" does not mean it's not taxed on its profits, it means it can't make a profit or it will be taxed. The Boy Scouts of America, for instance, does not make a profit, as determined by the IRS. That's not just a technicality (at least not any more than the First Amendment itself is a technicality).

Your giving me a load of avoidance. According to the quote I gave you "US churches are tax exempt".

EDIT (and Australian churches are tax exempt. This is not just about the US)
OB

 

[Zoii]

He is correct in the sense that if these people don’t stop these sinful habits they will go to hell. I think it is very admirable of him to risk his occupation to warn people of the consequences of their lifestyle. What’s more important saving souls or playing rugby?

Thats not his job though. When you go to work each day do you tell your employer - 'Just so you know, dont expect e to abide by the terms of my employment. Saving souls is what I intend to do and if that doesnt fit with this job too bad' - see how that goes and let me know if you still have a job.

 

[Zoii]

This has become the new rule of the West: Don't talk openly about anything even slightly suggestive of Christian or conservative beliefs or else face any persecution.

Explain to me why you believe that what you are witnessing is Christian persecution. Would you - for example - have expected a reaction from your employer if an islamic employee was quoting from the qoran at work and alluded to death no non-moslems. Do you think that such an action by an employee should evoke a response from the employer?

 

[Zoii]

But what if he was asked a factual question about his religion? Is he supposed to lie or be dishonest?

It was not - It was one of many twitter posts he made. He has been warned on several occasions by his employer.

Dont get me wrong - I really like Israel Folau. I think he has been poorly counselled by his church. There was clearly an opportunity to use his elevated platform to extol the virtues of Christianity and to role model message of love and kindness. He has lost that opportunity.

So the community has not only wasted a significant investment by way of a sporting elite, but it has also lost an opportunity to hear something positive from a Christian.

 

[Zoii]

Did he actually denigrate them? Saying somebody is going to Hell if they do X is not necessarily denigration.

Yes he denigrated. By saying 'Your going to hell' He is saying you are bad - You dont go to hell because your a fabulous person