Freedom of religion report misses target
HOW sad to see the fight for freedom — particularly of speech — get boiled down to the freedom to reject a gay teenager. Taxpayers should be equally free of any obligation to fund schools that do so, writes Andrew Bolt.
Andrew Bolt
Don't miss out on the headlines from Andrew Bolt. Followed categories will be added to My News.
YES, of course our private schools should have the freedom to kick out kids who are gay. Long live freedom of faith.
So the federal government’s review into religious freedom is quite right to recommend it.
But here is what it failed to add in its report, leaked on Wednesday: such schools should then not get a single dollar of taxpayer money. No to state funding for bigots.
Wow. I can see why former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and, now, successor Scott Morrison sat on this report for five months, wondering what the hell to do with it.
REVIEW COULD GIVE SCHOOLS RIGHT TO ‘REJECT’ GAY KIDS
SUSIE O’BRIEN: GAY KIDS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED, NOT SHUNNED
Is this really what the Liberals should make a top order of business: reducing the cause of religious freedom to being mean to gay students?
Not with my taxes, they don’t. The schools — Christian and Muslim — who want to reject openly gay students as an abomination can do as they please, since no parents are forced to send them their children.
But their funding from state and governments should be cut. Taxpayers should be equally free of any obligation to fund a hostility to gays. Long live that freedom, too.
That’s not the only strange thing about this report. It also contains a basic logical inconsistency.
There is a big moral difference between discriminating against what people are born with and what they actually do
We can’t choose our gender, gayness or colour of our skin, which is just one reason why such things shouldn’t count in judging someone’s moral worth.
But we can choose how we behave and those choices are what makes us a moral being. Behaviour is what we should be judged on.
So only a peanut would discriminate against someone for being born gay, but intelligent people can still disagree on whether gays taking on the marriage tradition is good or socially useful.
In fact, some religious schools already accept this difference. They will hire gay teachers, provided those teachers keep their private life private and do not get married.
But check out the confusion in this report. It says religious schools should be free to reject children just for being gay, but it says businesses cannot reject, say, baking a wedding cake for gay adults choosing to get married.
Somehow a school shunning a gay teenager as sinful is fine, but denying a wedding cake for two gay adults is evil, according to the report, because such bans “may cause significant harm to vulnerable groups”.
Seriously? Shouldn’t this be exactly the other way around?
But, no. The report insists: “To some school communities, cultivating an environment and ethos which conforms to their religious beliefs is of paramount importance …
“To the extent that this can be done in the context of appropriate safeguards for the rights and mental health of the child, the panel accepts their right to select, or preference, students who uphold the religious convictions of that school community.”
True, Commonwealth law already gives religious schools freedom to discriminate against gay students and teachers, but how sad to see this report urge more of the same.
That’s even more surprising when you check out its authors: former attorney-general Philip Ruddock, Australian Human Rights Commission president Rosalind Croucher, former Federal Court judge Annabelle Bennett, priest and lawyer Frank Brennan and constitutional law expert Professor Nicholas Aroney.
But you know what’s even sadder? That the fight for freedom — particularly of speech — gets boiled down to the freedom to reject a gay teenager.
Sure, there is more to this report, which so far has not been publicly released and which we can, therefore, judge only from media reports.
For instance, it also suggests the law be changed to stop the kind of religious persecution we’ve seen so far — priests and even a Tasmanian archbishop dragged off to the tribunals and courts for preaching church doctrine on marriage.
And it reportedly wants an end to the blasphemy laws which rob us of our freedom to debate religious ideas, including poisonous ones.
This is where the debate should really be, particularly when religious vilification laws are increasingly turned into new blasphemy laws, used particularly to protect Islam.
In Victoria, two pastors were dragged into court for quoting and criticising passages of the Koran which praised jihad. The ACT, two years ago, passed even tougher laws against religious “vilification”, with MPs citing the need to protect Muslims.
Let’s talk about that, shall we, rather than let the noble fight for freedom turn into this miserable fight to tell gay students they’re not wanted.
Lockdown will kill Victorians — but not from coronavirus
Politicians are destroying Australia — throwing a million people out of work, causing suicides — because they’ve fallen for two great weaknesses, both of which will extend crippling lockdowns much longer than necessary, writes Andrew Bolt.
Record day proves crude bans on freedom don’t work
Victoria’s new record of 725 infections is more evidence that the government’s hard line policies on masks and lockdowns aren’t working as planned, writes Andrew Bolt.