Julia's Reign
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Status
Fairly poor was probably understating it.
It isn't such a simple thing to fix though.
On one hand you have the issue of discrimination and the desire to stamp out discrimination across all facets of society.
On the other hand you have the concept of freedom of religion. Religious groups and schools do have the freedom to preach/teach what they want and hire who they want to teach that. Whilst I disagree completely with the idea that anyone should be allowed to teach children that homosexuality is wrong and evil, a religion has the right to believe that.
The argument will then be raised that any organisation receiving public funding shouldn't have a right to discriminate however I don't see it as being that simple. Taxpayer money goes to many things that most of us have no right to partake in and benefit from that have nothing to do with religion.
It's an interesting topic and one that I think is actually more nuanced than something like gay marriage. The principal argument around allowing gay marriage on the basis that it has no effect on the lives of others or on other marriages doesn't work in this case because making religious organisations employ people who don't uphold their values does have an affect on the ability for that religious organisation to preach what they believe.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Needless discrimination only takes us backwards. I would seriously bet my life that if an islamic group started a hospital, or took over one in an area where there is no other hospital nearby, and decided to only hire non-catholic's, and only those in a polygamous relationship. Then over 99% of those supporters of discrimination when christians do it would be up in arms and demand either that (1) the anti discrimination laws get kicked in or (2) to block hospitals from aligning with islamic fundies.
I have very little time for arguments supporting discrimination, especially when public funding is involved, which it is. Because discrimination (funnily enough) is never applied consistently by it's supporters. It's easy for us to say "lets take religious sensitivities into mind and not force them to spend their money on hiring people who don't share their worldview" when most of us here are part of the white-christian raised majority. Just like a disproportionate number of our federal MPs.
I have very little time for arguments supporting discrimination, especially when public funding is involved, which it is. Because discrimination (funnily enough) is never applied consistently by it's supporters. It's easy for us to say "lets take religious sensitivities into mind and not force them to spend their money on hiring people who don't share their worldview" when most of us here are part of the white-christian raised majority. Just like a disproportionate number of our federal MPs.
I guess the next question is should any organisation receiving taxpayer support (whether through direct funding, tax exemption or easier/cheaper access to services/infrastructure) be barred from utilising any modes of discrimination against who they employ or allow to be members?
I think this sort of change would have far wider reaching consequences than just on religious organisations and schools.
I agree with your point regarding the outrage that would be heard if an Islamic Hospital was started or similar. There is a substantial level of hypocrisy amongst the public and our politicians.
I think this sort of change would have far wider reaching consequences than just on religious organisations and schools.
I agree with your point regarding the outrage that would be heard if an Islamic Hospital was started or similar. There is a substantial level of hypocrisy amongst the public and our politicians.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I don't particularly care of the consequences. The law should be applied evenly to all. Whether receiving taxpayer funding or not, there should be no discrimination.
Religion standing above the law can become a huge issue, and I want it completely abolished in this country, no matter what religions or beliefs are affected.
Religion standing above the law can become a huge issue, and I want it completely abolished in this country, no matter what religions or beliefs are affected.
Isn't barring people from freely practicing their religion just as discriminatory as religious groups discriminating who they will employ or who they allow to enroll at their schools?
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
That's a hard argument to support. To say it is equally valid that Religious organisations should be allowed to apply their specific beliefs in areas of society (health care, education, social services) which really has nothing to do with their belief systems or doctrines while taking government support, funded by all sections of society is wrong in my opinion.
If they have such specific concerns they should revert to their original purpose.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
It's self refuting. You can't violate the rights of others on the basis that it's your right to practice a religion full of human rights violations.
If a catholic school wanted to own slaves we'd say "no you can't do that". But if they want to only hire married, heterosexual, catholics then we suddenly support them 100%. Despite the fact both go against what we consider to be basic work rights for our citizens.
I just go by the saying "what would Jesus do", and I am skeptical of whether he'd be vigorously fighting for our right to refuse non-christians a job in a hospital.
If a catholic school wanted to own slaves we'd say "no you can't do that". But if they want to only hire married, heterosexual, catholics then we suddenly support them 100%. Despite the fact both go against what we consider to be basic work rights for our citizens.
I just go by the saying "what would Jesus do", and I am skeptical of whether he'd be vigorously fighting for our right to refuse non-christians a job in a hospital.
I did like this comic I saw yesterday.
http://sphotos-d.AK (Andrew Kellaway).fbcdn.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-ash4/379175_589231001106357_165100795_n.jpg
http://sphotos-d.AK (Andrew Kellaway).fbcdn.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-ash4/379175_589231001106357_165100795_n.jpg
The best way to really sort out the discrimination issue is to hit them in the back pocket, not just the funding of these insular organisations but also their tax exempt status.
If they want to follow there on path, fine, but no funding and no tax free ride. (this would clear NSW's deficit just in the land tax windfall)
But in reality this discrimination issue doesn't often hit the coal face.
My girlfirend is a director of a major catholic school, we have been living in sin for 20 years, never a problem. Most of the male staff are gay, the head of mission is buddhist. The Nuns are wonderful balanced caring people who generally ignore the rantings of the frustrated bishops.
If they want to follow there on path, fine, but no funding and no tax free ride. (this would clear NSW's deficit just in the land tax windfall)
But in reality this discrimination issue doesn't often hit the coal face.
My girlfirend is a director of a major catholic school, we have been living in sin for 20 years, never a problem. Most of the male staff are gay, the head of mission is buddhist. The Nuns are wonderful balanced caring people who generally ignore the rantings of the frustrated bishops.
I think this is an important point on how things work in reality. I think the reality is that a lot of religious schools and organisations don't discriminate when employing people. It would seem that it is the most conservative/right wing religious organisations that are using discriminatory practices. My question is how many gay people would actually want to work at places that refuse to hire them because they are able to?
In my thinking it will make far more difference to the lives of homosexual people to be allowed to marry than to have a right not to be discriminated against by workplaces that they probably wouldn't want to work at.
From a political standpoint it does seem prudent to pick these issues off one at a time rather than attacking many areas which would then be met with claims that the government is at war with the Catholic Church (even though it affects many other religions, The ACL and Catholic Church are the powerful ones that garner all the attention in the media).
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that this area of discrimination is something that needs to be resolved in the future however I can see why it is being sidestepped for now.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
The reality is that my wife couldn't tubal ligation at the local private hospital because it was religious based, despite us both having been private health members all of our lives.
They can discriminate against us and still take a large chunk of government funding. It wouldn't be an issue if their was choice, but they are the only private hospital within 200kms of us.
They can discriminate against us and still take a large chunk of government funding. It wouldn't be an issue if their was choice, but they are the only private hospital within 200kms of us.
I completely agree that this discrimination needs to end.
On what basis was she refused? It is my understanding that doctors can refuse to do certain treatments/prescribe certain drugs if it is against their religious beliefs however I don't think it is legal for a hospital to refuse treatment based on your religious beliefs or lack thereof.
I.e. a Catholic doctor can refuse to prescribe the contraceptive pill however they have to make that information clear from the outset.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Because they are a Catholic Based health provider they denied treatment because it was for contraceptive purposes. They will only perfom it if their is a compelling medical reason. It has nothing to do with the doctor who performs the surgery, there is a blanket ban on medical procedures for contraceptive purposes at St John of God hospitals despite being largely Government funded.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I am pretty sure you are just playing devils advocate there. The answer of course is no, if their beliefs hurts others or breaks the law.
I definitely am playing devil's advocate to an extent. I am most certainly atheist.
I agree with your point that if a belief hurts others or breaks the law then it is not alright.
Along similar lines, I found the calls to ban the burqa/hijab pretty hypocritical. I know they mostly came from right wing shock jocks and politicians but there was a claim that it was in the interests of women's rights etc.
It seemed to me that the only thing worse than telling a woman she had to wear a burqa would be having people outside your religion telling you that you aren't allowed to wear one.
The whole 'beliefs hurting others' thing becomes pretty grey as far as discriminatory employment practices by some religious organisations. Whilst it isn't a good situation, a religious organisation having the right not to employ someone who wouldn't want to work there in the first place isn't high on the list of social problems to deal with.
I think it will take more generational change before more of these religious organisations become more accepting of homosexuals and decide that they have no issues employing anyone. This is already happening in the more moderate religious organisations as fatprop pointed out earlier.
What leads religious organisations to be more moderate and accepting is members of those religions becoming more accepting. Whilst there might be a push from outside those religions for change, it will never be accepted or garner enough momentum to become reality until people inside those religions call for change or become accepting of it.
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
Every hospital picks and chooses what procedures they provide, and they receive gov't funding based on what they do - if no contraceptive procedures, no money for those procedures. Perhaps give them some credit for running the only private hospital within 200km?
There is a difference in not being able to provide a service to denying a service based on religious belief.
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
Why? The Catholic hospitals aren't receiving funding to do contraceptive procedures, it's no secret. They are the only ones who have chosen to open a hospital in that area. Probably the other private hospital providers can't see a good profit in opening a hospital there - aren't they also denying services purely on the basis of profit?
- Status