• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Zoii, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,511
    Atheist
    Private
    Never said there wouldn't be consequences, but he is still free to post anything he wants.
     
  2. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,511
    Atheist
    Private
    OK, he violated the code of conduct rather than a social media clause. I don't see how that fundamentally changes the discussion.

    That's not what the article says.
     
  3. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,163
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    Just as rugby stated the code of conduct in the first place. But you seem ok a religion can impose dismissal but no other employer can.
    Even though inclusiveness is critical to rugby yet knowing the Bible has nothing to do with the role of a maths teacher. It's hypocrisy that's legal, but none the less hypocrisy in the extreme they are complaining what religion has always done.
     
  4. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    It is not as simple as that. If the employer wanted a particular culture and they allowed people with religious beliefs to join then they had to train and educate those employees in that. They also had to clearly put this in the contract in relation to religious beliefs as this is also a legal right to have. RA did neither. Also what was the culture they were trying to create. I don't think RA even knew, was it inclusion of all sexuality, was it inclusion of all religious beliefs. It was not clear. Folau also said that the RA boss was not clear and that if it was made clear to him that he was not allowed to express his beliefs he would have walked away from the game. The fact that RA offered him 2 mill to go shows they knew they had not done the right thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  5. Anthony2019

    Anthony2019 "Only Me!" Supporter

    +3,367
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Single
    I totally agree with you. I get very uncomfortable when people make statements as to who they think are going to hell, whether they think they're being 'loving' or not. Verbally consigning someone to hell conveys a lack of mercy and when these words are made public, people become scapegoated and it incites others to view them with contempt. James 2:12 states that we are to speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. It states, in no uncertain terms, that God will show no mercy to those who judge without mercy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  6. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    No RA did not have a clause in Folau's contract about his religious beliefs and social media. Because they did not train him or anyone else in how to manage that and because they did not get expert advise on how to work with people of religion and their right to express their beliefs it is the fault of RA for any ambiguity that followed in what position they had. Even after the first incident happened Folau stated that RA boss said it was OK for him to post his beliefs on social media but to be careful about what he posted. But what does that mean. They still were not clear and as Folau had 100s of posts that seem to be OK alluding to the consequences of sin what was OK or not was also not made clear.
    No I am not saying that. If someone has breached their contract then fair enough. But what is inclusiveness. Is it including any lifestyle or is it including the freedom of religious belief. This clarity has never been settled so people will think they have their rights. Religious organizations are usually clear as religious belief goes deeper than most things as it is a matter of conscience. The employment of a person is not just based on their area of expertise alone. In fact I would say 50% if not more is about fitting into the organization. So to say that religious organizations have to be forced to employ a math teacher just because they teach math is unreal.

    Besides this is all irrelevant in Folau's case. The court is not going to say just because so and so can do something and are hypocrites we will have to find a person guilty. They will go on the merits of the situation itself. What each party did to contribute to the end result that happened. From what I have read Folau has a good case and a lot of support.
     
  7. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    Which part the one that says a persons sexuality should be included or the one that says a persons right to religion should be included. It is not that simple. In the context of the entire situation that is a very ambiguous code which leaves people unsure. In Folau's eyes he felt he was doing nothing wrong.
    If this is not what the article said then why did the boss of RA admit that there was no clause in Folau's contract about social media. Why did she admit quote " the decision would change the landscape for sport across Australia and perhaps internationally" in relation to sacking Folau. Doesn't this indicate that they have made a decision that is unprecedented and therefore they never really had any clear basis to do it.

    Why did RA boss mention they were going to pay Folau out, if he had breached his contract RA don't have to pay him out. If they are offering to pay him out then this is an admission that they got something wrong.

    What did RA boss mean when she said quote
    " RA couldn't insert a specific social media clause in Folau's last contract as it wasn't part of the existing CBA between RA and RUPA".

    "We can't just insert clauses whenever we feel like it," she said. "Even if we had a (social media) clause who knows where this could have gone from a legal perspective?"


    Who knows where this could have gone from a legal perspective. Doesn't that indicate they don't even know themselves what a player can and cannot do legally. Seems like RA did not have a clue and that has ended up causing some to not know where they stood either.
     
  8. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +4,319
    Atheist
    Single
    So Christians need special instruction to be able to behave in a civil manner.

    And do note that this was NOT a first infraction of his part. He had been counseled and warned before for the same offence.

    Folau's claim that if things had been made clear to him he would have walked away from the game is rather dubious since he could walk away now and is actively refusing to do so.

    If liar's are doomed to Hell Folau seems to have a problem.
     
  9. Cash80

    Cash80 Member Supporter

    313
    +43
    Australia
    Christian
    In Relationship
    It looks like the RA considers any preaching from the Bible that gives proud unrepentant sinners worldly sorrows as behaving in an uncivil manner. Has our society got totally insane or what? The only liars is the RA directors by stating that they respect people of religious beliefs but then they sack people if their religious beliefs make them feel uncomfortable. Folau is not walking away by suing them because he wants to seek justice by exposing the insanity of our society.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  10. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +4,319
    Atheist
    Single
    If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

    BTW can you find the scripture he quoted? AS best I can find there is not one that lists the sins he did and says they are hell bound. Hell bound is different from will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, which probably would have not created any problems. Nor would John 3:16. There are only a handful of verses that can be taken as uncivil and the majority of then even have to be twisted a bit to do so. (Such as taking verses clearly addressed to Christians and readdressing them specifically to non-Christians).
     
  11. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,974
    Christian
    Married
    He quoted it to the wrong people.

    That warning was to people professing Christianity.

    That instruction is meant for Christians, not for pagans. It should be given by a pastor from a pulpit, not to the world at large.

    No pagan is going to hell for homosexuality. Not a single one.

    Pagans are going to hell for disbelief.
     
  12. Cash80

    Cash80 Member Supporter

    313
    +43
    Australia
    Christian
    In Relationship
    Yes, his posts on Instagram were based on John 3, dealing with the need to be born again in order to avoid condemnation. Also, his post were based on Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.
     
  13. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    You have it the wrong way around. The human rights commission has given special instruction that allows religious organizations to choose to only employ people of the same faith if they choose to do so. But really this is not a big thing as non-religious organizations do the same.

    Folau stated that the only meeting he had was with the RA boss Raelene Castle who did not warn him but had an informal talk about the use of social media. Besides why would she say that in hindsight she could have handled things better in relation to Folau and that her hands were tied as far as doing anything about Folau in the legal sense. What Miss Castle viewed as inappropriate Folau viewed as OK in expressing his beliefs. The problem is that RA did not educate its players in the use of social media or seek advice on how to handle and accommodate peoples religious beliefs. This created an ambiguous situations for some. So even if he was warned there was conflicting views which caused people to question things.

    Folau is pursuing his rights for being sacked for expressing his beliefs. Just because he wants to defend his rights does not mean he wants his job back. The point here is he has lost his career and has been tarnished so he wants to clear his name.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  14. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    Maybe so but I think most people know that not going to heaven means that they end up in hell. The thing is people have stated and warned countless times that sinners will end up in hell and it has all been OK. People often paraphrase the original text. It is widely done in academic referencing. So long as the original meaning is upheld that is fine.

    Sure he could have used better language but I do not think he intended any hurt. Rather he was aiming for an impact as a warning. In his eyes it is a loving act to make people aware of the consequences of sin. He qualified things by stating that Jesus loves them and can save them. The problem was the media cut out the rest of his post and only showed the warning of hell part. People like to use Jesus as the example of how we should be kind and loving towards others but Jesus spoke and warned about hell more than anyone.

    The bible tells us that calling out sinners is important to help them become aware of sin to be saved. For Folau being a preacher it would be even more important that he is able to express his beliefs and instruct others. In fact the verse he quoted was in reply to a question someone had asked him so he is often in a situation where he has to quote the bible.
    Here is some verses about hell and warning sinners.

    1 Timothy 5:20
    As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
    Romans 2:8-9
    but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
    2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

    And so on. There are many. So what are Christians suppose to do, start going through the bible and crossing out all the verses that may offend others. Some people are saying if the bible is offending gays it is also offending drunks, liars, adulterers, fornicators etc. But should we start banning things because they offend. This is what is happening in Universities and other public forums.

    People are shouting down anyone who opposes certain views and ideals. They don't want to hear the truth and only want to include what they consider is truth. They want safe spaces and live in a cotton wool world protected from reality and this is not healthy. People are now labeling opposing views as hate speech and calling people bigots as a way to shut them down. But for Folau and other Christians the bible is the ultimate truth and they have every right to express it even if it may offend some.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  15. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,163
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    That's not so - When registering as a player or official you have to agree by the code of conduct - I had to do it - Folau would have had to do it.

    Thats not true either. Every player and official has training in this matter - its part of the registering process and for someone at Folau's level would have been in much greater detail.
    Its Ok to state a belief - Its not Ok to tell all players, officials, supporters that we will burn in hell forever - thats counter-productive to both Christian endeavours IMO but its certainly counter to Rugby ethos. He was told, retold, retold again - and since he didnt get it and insists on pouring rubbish onto the rest of us - he was fired.... and good riddance.

    There you go - Oh wait - except in religious institutions which can get away with what no other employer can do - Apparently, by law, they are immune to overt discrimination.

    And that kinda rankles - its how it is for every single employer - except the religious groups who won the right to target groups based on gender, sexuality, your sexual activities (legal and heterosexual) religious belief, and whether your pregnant.

    Its how they got away with expelling some nuns from their order because they were raped by priests and fell pregnant. No-one knows hypocrisy better than the churches.
     
  16. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    The code of conduct also mentions the right to religious freedom, so RA also had to support and protect Folau's rights in that regard and at the very least this created a conflicting situation. The other point is what RA believes is being discriminatory regarding Folau quoting bible verses and discriminating against any group of people others will believe that it is not and that is the point of religious freedom in allowing different views. Folau and other religious people believe that calling out sinners is being loving and no one can say that is not what they truly believe.

    This is consistent with the rest of the post he made which the media cut out stating Jesus loves them and can save sinners and is consistent with the bible being an accepted book used in mainstream society. Society and RA were happy enough to accept all those which mentions sinners of various sins and the consequences. No one complained or has complained about this regarding the other sins mentioned. Why didn't RA stand up for drunks or atheists.

    RA did not educate themselves by seeking expert advice as to how to accommodate people with religious belief in these matters and therefore fails on two fronts. They are being dismissive and discriminating by not accommodating and understanding those beliefs and they also have an onus and duty to educate players specifically regarding religious belief and social media which they also did not do. The problem is RA were ambiguous with their position which contributed to the situation and that is why RA offered Folau 2 million to walk away as they realized they had not done the right thing.

    What also will be called into question is the fact that RA had Folau sacked and was informing their sponsor Qantas who were putting pressure on them before any meeting was held for Folau to have the right to defend himself. This points to Folau being sacked under duress to please a sponsor which equates to discrimination and unfair dismissal. Other players have done far worse in assault women and drugs on more than one occasion and have not been dealt as harsh a punishment.

    They have not addressed the particular circumstances in what has happened in Folau's case and that is why it has become a test case. They may have had some generic training but they did not have specific education in how to accommodate and help players with their religious beliefs. They have just taken a one size fits all approach and that is at the root of the problem. As stated by the article below.

    But the decision to re-sign Folau on a new $4.8 million deal over four years with no social media clause and training — on social media and discussion with religious experts — is expected to be scrutinized over.
    Indeed, the failure to ensure laser tight steps were taken to prevent a second social media controversy led RA’s legal team to offer him “close to $2 million as a settlement offer to walk away” before May’s code of conduct hearing,
    The Daily Telegraph reports.

    That is not what the bible says nor what Folau intended, it is a general statement about sin and not individuals. Besides people have accepted this and other bible verses saying similar for years as being part of Christian belief. It is yours and others views that this is what the bible verse means. This is at the crux of the matter, you have stated that this is your opinion and Folau and others have a different opinion. Who says that your view is the only one or even the right one and not something based on a misunderstanding.

    You have taken a default position by claiming to know Folau's mindset and his motivation. That could be a biased and unfair position just as RA's may be taking a biased and discriminating position about Folau. What RA believes as right may be proven wrong and Folau has a right to challenge that. In the light of the article above where RA had decided to sack Folau before any hearing from the pressure from Qantas this may be a real factor of bias and discrimination. From what I have read Folau has a lot of support for his position even from non-believers and legal advice has said he has a number of legal angles to win this case which you can refer to in my past posts.

    Well this is also up for dispute and there is a disagreement as to what was said and how it was said in the meeting. Once again, I have to refer to the article regarding RA lack of taking the right sort of action and support to address this matter hence, they offered him 2 million to walk away in realizing this.

    I have already addressed this in previous posts and you are misinformed about what exemptions under religious rights means and does not mean. Religion does not get a open ticket to discriminate and can only do this in certain situations which is a reasonable position to take and something the UN human rights has stated so. But this is irrelevant to Folau’s case and just a distraction. But for more detail on this refer to answer below.

    First a religious organization is different to other organizations, so you are comparing apples with oranges which is an unfair comparison. There are certain situations where religious belief needs to be upheld such as the right to employ people of the same beliefs who understand their ways and to protect the culture they have. If they believe that it is important for all their staff in a religious organization should be of the same faith, then they can advertise for this. But if they employ someone without that stipulation then they are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws.

    An example with culture and how not allowing this is with Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians say that they should have the right to employ Indigenous people in their organizations and in government support services as at the moment non-Indigenous workers do not understand their culture and this is causing their culture to be lost and for many missing out on important health services. o the right to employ Indigenous workers is discriminating against non-indigenous workers but it is for a good reason to maintain their culture and have like minded people in the positions.

    Non-religious organizations have been discriminating who they want to work for them for years and people accept and allow this. For example, a political organization such as the Liberals is not going to employ Labor (socialist) PR or sales people. A animal’s rights organization is not going to employ someone who supports the right to hunt and kill animals. A women’s gym like Fernwood has the right to only allow women into their club because there are situations where the women are in compromising situations and they deal with women specific issues.

    But not just that thousands of organizations and businesses are discriminating who they decide can work for them all the time. They try to create a certain culture and they are going to scrutinize what sort of people work for them. So, someone who has a different lifestyle and values to what they want are not going to get the job. They will consider qualifications and skills, but they will also consider a person’s personal attributes like lifestyle and values and I would say this will often trump qualifications and skills for the job.

    I am not familiar with the case so I cannot comment. I am not saying the church is not guilty of discrimination and in fact when you consider the child sex abuse, they have plenty to be accountable for. But so, do non-religious organizations. This still does not and should not take away from the fact that there are situations where certain organizations should have the right to discriminate to protect their beliefs or culture otherwise it will be undermined. But this is all irrelevant to Folau’s case and this is about whether RA had the right deny Folau his religious rights in this particular situation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  17. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,163
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    And this is what courts will need to decide. Where religious action is counter to employment requirements.

    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.

    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 - thats 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 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

    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.

    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?

    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.

    A religious institution can put in the job description requirements for the job. If they need to teach religion then so be it.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  18. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +284
    Christian
    Private
    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  19. samlee2004

    samlee2004 Newbie

    3
    +1
    Protestant
    Hi

    I think its always admiral to see a person take a stand for the word of God and embrace its truth, however i also think sometimes its good to be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove.

    Meaning i dont think anyone was challenging his faith or doubting his commitment to God and he didn't have to prove how faithful or Staunch his belief in God was by pointing out the obvious free choices of other people and the judgement punishment and consequences that God reserves for those who prefer to participate in the flesh.

    But as an example he could have said he was a Christian that supports the bibles perspective on What God identifies as moral and immoral practices.

    If a interviewer reporter or person asked him to clarify or asked him a question that could incriminate him he could say he has already answered that question and its up to the individual to translate it how they like.

    As Christian he has made a fair and reasonable statement without condemning the free will and lifestyles of other people, maintaining a neutral but assertive position.

    just some food for thought.
     
Loading...