Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Zoii]

I read a very thought-provoking piece a few days ago - which I can't find now, of course - which argued that in a way, Mr. Folau's church had failed him, by telling him that this is the only way to be a good Christian with a high public profile, and not equipping him to be an effective evangelist in ways which are appropriate in his context.

Should he have said it? Well, I don't think it's an effective proclamation of the good news of Christ, but maybe that's not the point. Should he be fired for it? I can understand why it happened; and he knew the consequences before he did it.

All around, it seems to me we need to find better ways to have difficult conversations, and perhaps the choice of medium here is a big part of the problem.

@No Username Found, no, Australia does not have the same legal underpinnings for freedom of religion as America.

Can you remember the reference?

I'd be interested to know how christians intend to handle such matters. It must apply to quite a broad spectrum of livelihoods.

 

[Zoii]

First of all, it's my view that if you make an oath (i.e. sign a contract) you are obligated to keep your word. Simple as that.

Secondly, if it is so important that you make a public statement on a controversial topic, you do so knowing full well the risks and implications, and if you go on with it you have made a decision you're willing to accept the consequences.

My question in this matter is what purpose did it serve for this statement to be made? What made it necessary to be said now by him and why? Many people hold the same belief and many of those who do not hold that belief already know the conservative Christian position. It's not like it's been kept a secret until now. So what was so compelling that he had to throw himself on his sword for this? I don't get it.

A lot of people dont get it.
I suspect, as an evangelist, he feels compelled to be vocal about his beliefs. I am aware that some christian groups see his sacking as a type of religious persecution.

 

[Paidiske]

Can you remember the reference?

I'd be interested to know how christians intend to handle such matters. It must apply to quite a broad spectrum of livelihoods.

I think I can remember who shared it on FB, let me see if I can hunt it down.

Ah! Here we go. Long piece, but worth reading: How the church failed Israel (and modern Australia is too)

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

what prompted him to make these views public?

was he prompted by his employer to make a statement that would have been contrary to his beliefs on these issues?

 

[seeking.IAM]

The gate swings both ways. In my town, two lesbian Catholic School teachers were fired when it was discovered they were both in same gender marriages. Now if you are a liberal, you might cry, "Foul! Discrimination!" Yet they signed a contract knowing full well the values of their employer and then they violated that contract. Doesn't our word mean anything anymore?

 

[Romans 8]

I think he said they would all "go to hell if they do not repent". So he's just telling it like it is.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I read a very thought-provoking piece a few days ago - which I can't find now, of course - which argued that in a way, Mr. Folau's church had failed him, by telling him that this is the only way to be a good Christian...

Well, I'll bet they're going to regret that once they see the hit in his tithe reduction. Short-sighted all around, I'd say.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

@No Username Found, no, Australia does not have the same legal underpinnings for freedom of religion as America.

Thank you for the information. In regards to the OP, the Gospel at its very core is offensive. Offensive because before someone can see the need for a Savior, they must first be confronted with their sin. However, just as the Holy Spirit convicts us lovingly, not condemningly, we too ought to approach people with the Gospel in a similar fashion.

 

[Zoii]

The gate swings both ways. In my town, two lesbian Catholic School teachers were fired when it was discovered they were both in same gender marriages. Now if you are a liberal, you might cry, "Foul! Discrimination!" Yet they signed a contract knowing full well the values of their employer and then they violated that contract. Doesn't our word mean anything anymore?

Thats a fair point. As long as the contract was legal in the first place, and you walked in with full knowledge of what would happen if you broke the contract, then you must accept the consequences.

That said I empathise with him. I do not feel he is attempting to be hateful - rather he comes across as pious. But I think as @Paidiske says, he feels compelled to be vocal on public platforms BECAUSE he is famous and thus feels an added responsibility to be true to his religious convictions.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think he said they would all "go to hell if they do not repent". So he's just telling it like it is.

Well, that's a horse of a different color.

 

[Zoii]

I think he said they would all "go to hell if they do not repent". So he's just telling it like it is.

Yes that is correct - the point is that he is essentially saying - If you belong to [insert list of sinful behaviours] then your a bad person and will pay for it.

No-one disputes that Israel is a genuine person and a good person. The issue is being divisive on a public platform. His sponsors and Australian rugby dont want those in unmarried relationships [or their kids], or those that are gay, to be referred to negatively by a high profile employee. Its not in their best interests. Hence why he had the contractual obligations to keep his religious views to himself.

 

[Romans 8]

Yes that is correct - the point is that he is essentially saying - If you belong to [insert list of sinful behaviours] then your a bad person and will pay for it.

No-one disputes that Israel is a genuine person and a good person. The issue is being divisive on a public platform. His sponsors and Australian rugby dont want those in unmarried relationships [or their kids], or those that are gay, to be referred to negatively by a high profile employee. Its not in their best interests. Hence why he had the contractual obligations to keep his religious views to himself.

I understand. I should have quoted the post this was in response to. Thank you

 

[Strathos]

I agree - but what is your position on the topic?

As was implied, it heavily depends on the beliefs being expressed.

 

[Zoii]

what prompted him to make these views public?

was he prompted by his employer to make a statement that would have been contrary to his beliefs on these issues?

No - On the contrary - His employer was explicit that such views should not be placed in the public domain. This is not the first time he had breached his obligations. He was previously warned by his employer for making similar statements.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

No - On the contrary - His employer was explicit that such views should not be placed in the public domain. This is not the first time he had breached his obligations. He was previously warned by his employer for making similar statements.

you may not have understood the question.

did his employer put him in a position where he had to endorse or approve of these lifestyles?

 

[Occams Barber]

Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.

Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.

Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.

Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.

Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.

Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments

Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.

So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.

This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.

Rugby Australia has a right to impose contractual conditions on its players and officials in order to maintain its relationship with the general public, supporters and sponsors. Folau was clearly aware of the contractual conditions under which he was employed – he had already been warned several times as a result of earlier outbursts. Whether Folaus’ comments were based on religious conviction or secular reasoning is not material. Rugby Australia had every right to dismiss him for harassment and vilification.

On a broader note: I am becoming increasingly weary of the Christian view that otherwise unacceptable behaviour, by Christian organisations or individuals, should be accepted by the broader society based on religious justification. This line of argument has allowed for discrimination, misogyny, denial of rights and various abuses. As a society we have tended not to question “religious” reasons allowing religion to get away with behaviour which is totally unacceptable in secular society.

The #Metoo movement is exposing previously ignored male harassment of females. Perhaps it’s time for a similar movement to make it clear to those Christians and Christian organisations, who expect special exemption for behaving badly, that “Enough is Enough”.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

you may not have understood the question.

did his employer put him in a position where he had to endorse or approve of these lifestyles?

No
OB

 

[Zoii]

you may not have understood the question.

did his employer put him in a position where he had to endorse or approve of these lifestyles?

No - They wanted no endorsement of homosexuality or sexual relationships outside of marriage

 

[Zoii]

Rugby Australia has a right to impose contractual conditions on its players and officials in order to maintain its relationship with the general public, supporters and sponsors. Folau was clearly aware of the contractual conditions under which he was employed – he had already been warned several times as a result of earlier outbursts. Whether Folaus’ comments were based on religious conviction or secular reasoning is not material. Rugby Australia had every right to dismiss him for harassment and vilification.

On a broader note: I am becoming increasingly weary of the Christian view that otherwise unacceptable behaviour, by Christian organisations or individuals, should be accepted by the broader society based on religious justification. This line of argument has allowed for discrimination, misogyny, denial of rights and various abuses. As a society we have tended not to question “religious” reasons allowing religion to get away with behaviour which is totally unacceptable in secular society.

The #Metoo movement is exposing previously ignored male harassment of females. Perhaps it’s time for a similar movement to make it clear to those Christians and Christian organisations, who expect special exemption for behaving badly, that “Enough is Enough”.

OB

You raise some interesting points. Would they extend to politicians. Is it appropriate that a politician represents his christian [or other religion] regardless of whether his constituency holds to those views.

 

[blackribbon]

When I represent my employer, I have a responsibility to behave in the way they expect and not preach my beliefs if they violate other people's beliefs or make them feel uncomfortable. As long as I accept my paycheck, I am agreeing to this "contract" and their code of conduct.

If my "real life" reflects negatively on their "brand" then I also risk that they will stop letting me be part of their organization.

There are ways to be openly Christian within a non-Christian or an inclusive work place but it requires tact and discernment with how and where to express your beliefs. Jesus did not ever bulldoze into a place with different beliefs and announce loudly that they were wrong and going to go to hell. The only group he confronted up front was the Pharisees who specifically should have known better (they were the most educated Jews) and they were twisting God's message and lifting themselves up instead of God.

My belief is that God has put me in the place I am to "open the door" to people who have never seen Christianity in action. Instead of "in your face" Christianity, I serve and love all of patients...be they Muslim, Hindu, atheists, Jews, lesbians, drug users, etc... I may have been the first Christian who has literally washed their feet, found a recliner for their family member, or actually told them that they worthy of love.