Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[creslaw]

Society contains many different people from many walks of life. As people with common citizenship living in common communities and interacting with each other, we all need to learn to get on with each other. One aspect of getting on with each other is to not poke our noses into each other's business and publicly shame or criticise people. Shaming an individual person is one thing, but shaming a whole group of people is quite another thing. If we learn not shame people, not to pick on people of certain groups (and specifically, minorities) and especially if we don't pick on a minority group which is already being picked on, then perhaps our society can be more friendly to each other and to ourselves as well.

Now the way society has been developing is that societies are coming to the conclusion that gay people are not dangerous, that adults can choose who they are to love and who they are to be affectionate with. This hurts no-one. A compassionate and nice person will treat gay people as if they are people and not be concerned about who that person chooses to have romantic relations with. Not be judgemental, not call them out, not shame them, not threaten them with hell.

Many people in society are not Christians. It doesn't make sense for a Christian to run around pointing at strangers (regardless if they are Christian or not) and telling them they are going to hell.

If people are interested in Christian beliefs, they will either go to church and learn, or perhaps ask a Christian some questions. A nice Christian will answer those questions but will not simply tell people on the street that they are going to hell.

If you are the type of Christian that feels compelled to win people over to Christianity. Then do it with love. Be a nice Christian, be charitable, be a role model, share and care, help people in need, be pleasant. Telling people they are going to hell is the opposite of pleasant.


He is entitled to have his Christian beliefs, but others around him are entitled to not share his beliefs. Gays are entitled not to be picked on and harassed.



Yes he is saying horrible things. It is horrible to single out the gay community and publicly decree that they are all going to hell.
Surely there are nicer quotes from the bible that Christians can post and that won't be seen as harassment of minority groups.


Fair enough too. I don't tolerate people or groups of people picking on or harassing other groups.
Being a public figure (sporting star) comes with a social responsibility to help unite people and get people feeling included and happy. Not to incite people to pick on minorities.


Again, why can't those religious folks quote nicer parts of their scripture? Why be compelled to quote parts that tell minority groups that they are sinners and are going to hell?

I mean, a non Christian hearing the statement "you are going to hell" is either going to be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by you, scared of you, or just simply hate you. They are not going to be compelled to become a Christian and to tow the Christian line. If you want them to tow the line, you need to first win them over, them slam them with your rules.


This is nothing compared to the costs borne by those minorities who are constantly being picked on, being attacked by hate groups, being thrown out of their families, being de-friended etc.

We should not be inciting hate, we should be growing respect for each other, showing charity, allowing people to be themselves, daring to be different etc.

The comment about hell was not all that Folau posted - the context of his post was all sinful behaviour, adding that "Jesus Christ loves you".

Folau has shown no sign of discrimination against homosexuals, and in fact posed for the cover of a gay magazine (2014 Star Observer) denouncing homophobia in sport because he does not hate homosexuals.

Believing that homosexual acts are sinful does not mean Christians hate homosexuals ... just as believing abortions are sinful does not mean we hate women who have abortions.

It should be remembered that Folau is a lay preacher in his church and regularly posts religious comments on Instagram for his followers.

If someone posts a comment ridiculing committed evangelical Christians (who are now a minority group in many settings) I know there would be no outcry about vilifying anyone. I know because I have had those responses to my position on social media many times.

Freedom of speech means being able to say things that some people might find offensive.

 

[Desk trauma]

Freedom of speech means being able to say things that some people might find offensive.

Freedom of speech means you are not prosecuted or coerced by the state due to speech. It does not include the right to violate contracts one has signed without consequence nor the right to have others continue to associate with you if they no longer wish to nor does it demand that your employer continue employing you after you tarnish their image especially after being asked multiple times to stop.

 

[Occams Barber]

Freedom of speech means being able to say things that some people might find offensive.

From a Christian point of view 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of religion' usually means asking for or demanding discriminatory rights, that are not afforded to secular organisations, and 'justifying' their demands on the basis of Christian tradition or Biblical fiat.

Fortunately society is now less inclined to allow Christianity a licence to behave badly.
OB

 

[creslaw]

Freedom of speech means you are not prosecuted or coerced by the state due to speech. It does not include the right to violate contracts one has signed without consequence nor the right to have others continue to associate with you if they no longer wish to nor does it demand that your employer continue employing you after you tarnish their image especially after being asked multiple times to stop.

A few corrections: Folau refused to insert a social media clause in his contract. He was spoken to once after one previous post. There is no record of what was said and Folau believes he did not contravene any agreement.

The issue is whether an employee is able to make comments that relate to other aspects of their lives - Folau is a lay preacher and frequently posts religious messages on Instagram.

Christians who share Folau's evangelical-pentecostal faith know that his message came from a love of others and was meant for his followers, not the general public.

When disagreement is cast as hate speech, then all kinds of divergent opinions will be suppressed. Folau did not express disdain for homosexuals (as has been the case of people criticising him & his church members), but a theological opinion that homosexual acts are sinful and that according to his reading of the Bible all unrepentant sinners go to hell - the traditional Scriptural understanding for nearly 2000 years.

 

[RDKirk]

The issue is whether an employee is able to make comments that relate to other aspects of their lives

Well, in the US the answer to that question is a "no" that's been echoed thousands of times. Employers are citizens with rights as well.

 

[creslaw]

From a Christian point of view 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of religion' usually means asking for or demanding discriminatory rights, that are not afforded to secular organisations, and 'justifying' their demands on the basis of Christian tradition or Biblical fiat.

Fortunately society is now less inclined to allow Christianity a licence to behave badly.
OB

You have the right to express your opinion that Christianity has been used as a licence to behave badly ... even if that is emotionally harmful to young committed Christians. That is freedom of speech.

 

[creslaw]

Well, in the US the answer to that question is a "no" that's been echoed thousands of times. Employers are citizens with rights as well.

Do you have the principle of unfair dismissal in the US? A person expressing a difference of opinion - in this case, a theological belief about the afterlife - is about to be tested as unfair dismissal in the courts here.

 

[Paidiske]

From a Christian point of view 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of religion' usually means asking for or demanding discriminatory rights, that are not afforded to secular organisations, and 'justifying' their demands on the basis of Christian tradition or Biblical fiat.

Fortunately society is now less inclined to allow Christianity a licence to behave badly.
OB

To be fair, OB, this is party of the way Australian law has typically handled these things. Unlike many other countries, which have positively legislated for freedom of religion, in Australia, religious freedom has typically been legislated as religious-based exemptions from other laws.

That is, as has been noted in the recent Ruddock review, not necessarily the best possible way to handle such matters.

Now, I hope you know me well enough that I'm not, by noting that, arguing that destructive behaviour should be given a free pass; but it is worth noting that religious freedom as a category in its own right currently has fairly precarious legal standing in Australia.

 

[Occams Barber]

To be fair, OB, this is party of the way Australian law has typically handled these things. Unlike many other countries, which have positively legislated for freedom of religion, in Australia, religious freedom has typically been legislated as religious-based exemptions from other laws.

That is, as has been noted in the recent Ruddock review, not necessarily the best possible way to handle such matters.

Now, I hope you know me well enough that I'm not, by noting that, arguing that destructive behaviour should be given a free pass; but it is worth noting that religious freedom as a category in its own right currently has fairly precarious legal standing in Australia.

I won't go into detail here since it probably deserves its own thread on the topic of what I'm calling Christian Privilege - expecting a licence to do things which are disallowed, disapproved or totally unacceptable in secular society. I briefly mentioned the issue(s) upthread somewhere.

And, yes, I think I know you well enough to understand that you're realistic about the shortcomings of some Christian organisations or individuals.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

Do you have the principle of unfair dismissal in the US? A person expressing a difference of opinion - in this case, a theological belief about the afterlife - is about to be tested as unfair dismissal in the courts here.

There is such a concept, but the categories of unlawful dismissal are specified by law. It's not going to be ruled unfair if a connection between the company and a publicly unsavory employee has been publicized and the employee's actions are reflecting upon the company.

 

[creslaw]

There is such a concept, but the categories of unlawful dismissal are specified by law. It's not going to be ruled unfair if a connection between the company and a publicly unsavory employee has been publicized and the employee's actions are reflecting upon the company.

Millions of Australians do not regard Israel Folau as a "publicly unsavory employee" - while the majority voted in favour of ssm, 2 out of 5 voted against.

For many people this is a test case about the limits of religious freedom - not in the workplace but as a private individual pursuing an activity outside of his work. No one has suggested that Folau, by word or action, has been anything but supportive of homosexuals in his workplace.

With a new Labor government likely to win the election tomorrow, Christian schools will not be able to make decisions about preferring teachers that support the ethos of the school. If the policy is implemented, Christian schools that believe in traditional marriage could be forced to hire applicants who openly advocate for homosexual practices.

So if you support the firing of Israel Folau because "the employee's actions are reflecting upon the company", do you support a non-hiring policy for openly homosexual teachers in Christian schools?

 

[creslaw]

Israel Folau is a part of the conservative evangelical-pentecostal tradition in Christianity which often puts his beliefs at odds with the secular world view. Liberal churches have much in common with secular attitudes including the position that traditional Biblical Christianity can be destructive. Only Jesus' words about love & forgiveness are suitable in the modern world, and His words about sin, repentance and judgement should be ignored or concealed.

Israel Folau posted "Jesus Christ loves you" and included the consequences for unrepented sin. For this he is not only condemned & vilified by the secular world but unfortunately also by many in the liberal Christian denominations which in Australia are primarily represented by the Anglican & Uniting Churches.

 

[RDKirk]

So if you support the firing of Israel Folau because "the employee's actions are reflecting upon the company", do you support a non-hiring policy for openly homosexual teachers in Christian schools?

As current American law stands in most states, yes. The law specifies categories that I as an employer am obligated to ignore. Otherwise, I have a right to employ who I want to employ.

The only reason anyone is paying any attention to Israel Folau is because of who employs him. If he were a street sweeper who played soccer on weekends, he would not have the platform he has. His platform is dependent on his employer.

 

[stevil]

The comment about hell was not all that Folau posted - the context of his post was all sinful behaviour, adding that "Jesus Christ loves you".

He lumped homosexuals with "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters," and told them "Hell awaits you."

Now of that list, drunks, adulterers, liars and thieves are undesirables. With thieves being criminals.

Fornicators, atheists and idolaters are not undesirables. In today's times you would be laughed at if you were to stand on a street and yell out that fornicators are going to hell. In many countries (incl NZ) people will just ignore you if you say that atheists are going to hell. I'm not quite sure what an idolater is? From this link idolator
"1. One who worships idols.
2. One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another."
Well, with idolators, wouldn't sports fans be considered idolators, like sports fans who think Israel is the greatest rugby player, they would be idolators right? Really, saying idolators will go to hell, will just get a sports star some quizical and puzzled looks.

But for atheists that live in a country where atheists are ostracised or criminalised or mocked or worse and for homosexuals that are in a country where they are ostracised or criminalised or mocked or worse then these statements are big problems.

These people are already being picked on, already being treated poorly. It is a form of bullying.

Folau has shown no sign of discrimination against homosexuals,

Making public posts stating that homosexuals are sinners and are going to hell, is discrimination.

and in fact posed for the cover of a gay magazine (2014 Star Observer) denouncing homophobia in sport because he does not hate homosexuals.

Then there are plenty other phrases from the bible that Israel could then instead choose to promote rather than this.

Believing that homosexual acts are sinful does not mean Christians hate homosexuals

Sure, but there are people in society that do hate gays and are easy to incite into violence. Gays do get bashed. And these people get encouraged when others publically decree that gays are sinners and are going to hell.

Plus it is well known that many Christians and Christian groups actively seek to oppress gays, want to have gay sex outlaws, want to stop gays from adopting children, from having legal marriage, from being teachers etc. There is no dignity in this, no dignity in singling out gays and oppressing them. It is well known, the world over that gays are often the target of religious folk (Christians and Muslims).
Christians do not need to keep promoting their beliefs that gay sex is a sin and that these sinners will go to hell. It is well understood that many Christians oppose gays in many ways.

I would think what does need promotion is that Christians need to promote that Christians love gay people whether they are actively participating in gay sex or not. Christians need to promote that gays are people and deserve dignity and respect and should not be discriminated against and should not be attacked or harmed. This is what I think Christians should be promoting, Love, not hate, compassion not threats.

PS. Israel stated that homosexuals are sinners and are going to hell. He did not state that the act of gay sex was a sin, he stated that the person (the homosexual) was a sinner, and he proclaimed to know that they were going to hell.
Well, isn't it true that in Christianity, that all humans, except for Jesus are sinners? Does that mean we are all going to hell?

It should be remembered that Folau is a lay preacher in his church and regularly posts religious comments on Instagram for his followers.

It should also be remembered that society is full of people of all sorts of religions and non religions, of various cultures and beliefs. It also should be remembered that the Rugby organisation isn't a Christian organisation and that they have the right to hold a policy of anti discrimination, to treat all with dignity and respect regardless of religion, race, sexuality, age, skin colour, social class, wealth, political affiliation etc.
For Sports, where ultimately the top athletes get to represent their countries and become role models and heroes (idols) of everyday people, there is a social responsibility to be inclusive and against discrimination.
Many of Israel's fans aren't Christians.
When he preaches in a church he can cite whatever passages tickle his fancy and support whatever message he wants to make. When he is posting publically, and is a valued member, and highly public member of a reputable non Christian organisation, he has certain responsibilities.
Also that organisation risks losing sponsors and advertisers and getting govt grants if they are to support public bigotry.

If someone posts a comment ridiculing committed evangelical Christians (who are now a minority group in many settings) I know there would be no outcry about vilifying anyone.

Are evangelical Christians being picked on? Are people trying to make it illegal for them to get married or to adopt children, are they being harassed on the street, being called "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" in an aggressive way? Are they getting bashed? Are people refusing to bake cakes for them, refusing to let out BnB rooms?
Are they constantly being told they are sinners and going to hell?

Freedom of speech means being able to say things that some people might find offensive.

It isn't against the law for Israel to post what he has posted. He isn't going to prison or getting a criminal record. It is ,however in violation of the values of the organisation that he belongs to. The Rugby organisation cannot continue to be associated with this man.

 

[KCfromNC]

Millions of Australians do not regard Israel Folau as a "publicly unsavory employee" - while the majority voted in favour of ssm, 2 out of 5 voted against.

And they're welcome to hire this guy as their spokesman. But the fact they exist doesn't really make a difference in this situation.

For many people this is a test case about the limits of religious freedom - not in the workplace but as a private individual pursuing an activity outside of his work. No one has suggested that Folau, by word or action, has been anything but supportive of homosexuals in his workplace.

Except for publicly stating they deserve to be judged and tortured by someone more powerful than them.

 

[stevil]

while the majority voted in favour of ssm, 2 out of 5 voted against.

The problem with voting on such matters is that you often get people who feel the desire to oppress others. When these people are in the majority, then the minorities get oppressed.

If we recognise that society is made up of a diverse bunch of people, then rather than trying to oppress each other, we instead need to work out how to get along.

If you are religious minded, lets say you are a Christian of a particular affilliation, maybe Catholic or whatever, well, you can belong to the Catholic church and you can get all excited that the Catholic church will refuse to preside over the marriage of gay people.
But when it comes to the law governing all people regardless of whether they belong to your own religion or not. Well, what does it matter if the government recognises gay marriage?
People have a right to love, a right to form a family. Government, with the legal marriage construct offers certain protections and privileges for married couples. This has nothing to do with religion and harms no-one. Religious folk should refrain from trying to force their religious beliefs onto others, refrain from trying to oppress others.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

QFT, Jack.

 

[RDKirk]

Your profile says you are in the U.S. Did I miss something in the thread where there was any reference to the Australian Government taking any action? The actions taken were by his employer because he failed to live up to his contract. Something quite allowable here in the U.S.

I discussed that a bit earlier in the thread with someone. Outside of certain legally prescribed categories, a US employer can fire an employee for pretty much anything.

If an person is "outed" on Facebook for drowning a kitten, for sure his employer is going to fire him. If a person puts a video on Facebook of him pretending to drown a kitten, his employer will probably fire him.

 

[RDKirk]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

But look at this another way, Jack. As we learned in intelligence analysis school, you have to look at the game from your opponent's side of the board.

There is a cultural gang that has run the West, and particularly the Anglo-Saxon West for a few centuries now. Jesus is not their way of life, Jesus is just one of their gang signs. Everywhere they conquered new territory--"gained turf," they have "tagged" their turf with their gang sign: Christianity. It's just a gang sign, which is why they could lynch a man on Saturday and go to church on Sunday.

But when you begin to see the situation as gangs battling for territory, and that Jesus is just a gang sign for one of them, then you get a better idea of what's really happening here. It's not about Christianity, it's about one gang losing territory.

 

[Robert6671]

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.

Yeah they were right to fire him. I am not very politically correct but telling the world I am Christian is one thing. Voicing to the world that anyone who does not worship like me is going to hell is another. We are all allowed are own your opinions...but telling a gay person they are going to hell. That is morally wrong. One being gay is not a sin you can not help who you are attracted to. Acting on those desire would be the sin. And know one can declare if someone is going to hell or not, you know what I get the distinct felling that if alot of Christians today were living a few hundred years ago they would be apart of the mobs that burned people at the stake.