Protections for religious freedoms must go both ways

Jennifer Oriel’s perceptive article alluded to some of the cultural complexities the federal government faces with the upcoming ­debate of the religious discrimination bill, especially where it potentially clashes with state legislation (“Religion bill gives faithful a chance to defend themselves”, 30/11).

I recently sat in on a Zoom call with some state government representatives and members of a diverse range of faith leaders. The central concern was essentially whether an institution will be allowed to ensure that agreement to prescribed values within its employees is protected.

For what it’s worth, in almost two decades of school education, I have never heard of a case of students or staff being dismissed due to being same-sex attracted. As far as I know, such questions do not feature as part of an enrolment or employment interview; our centres of learning are by and large very generous and inclusive.

That is different, however, to the rightful expectation that places such as religious schools, hospitals, charities and universities have scope to set the standards they deem to be important in maintaining their social mission.

By way of civil contrast, would it be right for the Cancer Council to refuse to employ a potential marketing manager who smoked a packet of cigarettes a day? Should an AFL club be allowed to overlook a head of merchandising who prefers basketball?

Common sense says freedom must generously extend both ways. Organisations must be free to preserve their culture by ensuring that they have supportive people in their fold.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

The problem with the religious discrimination bill is that it exposes double standards.

Supporters claim people of faith want to be protected from discrimination and from expressing beliefs. At the same time, those backing the bill are demanding faith organisations must have the right to discriminate. This includes hiring and firing staff in taxpayer-funded education, aged care, charity, welfare and housing services, with LGBTI people the main target for discrimination.

The bill also allows harmful speech when done in the name of religion, while denying the targets of such speech the same freedom. If religious conservatives expect to be protected from discrimination, they cannot demand the special privilege to discriminate against others.

Brian Greig, Geographe, WA

The government cannot expect us to support its legislation to protect religious freedom while every session of parliament still begins with a recital of the Lord’s Prayer. Fewer than 50 per cent of Australians nominate themselves as Christian while 25 per cent declare no religion at all.

Section 116 of our Constitution states: “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance”. Yet the standing orders compel all members of parliament to observe the Protestant preamble and Lord’s Prayer, even though many are atheist, agnostic or belong to a non-Christian religion.

David Salter, Hunters Hill, NSW

ABC’s big loss

The loss of journalist Fran Kelly from ABC national morning radio is no small moment for public broadcasting. Kelly is a hardworking professional who has rightly earned her place among the greats of leading ABC journalists, announcers and presenters. Sadly, this is a dwindling cohort.

The announced replacement for Kelly, Patricia Karvelas, is likely to divide the early morning Radio National audience – and from a personal viewpoint, make it smaller by at least one. It’s a sad day for those for whom quality public broadcasting matters.

John Simpson, Melbourne

Take it to the bank

News that Westpac has spent years charging fees to 11,000 deceased customers (“Westpac’s $113m fine for alleged ‘compliance failures’ ”, 30/11) calls to mind Nikolai Gogol’s satirical 1842 novel Dead Souls, where one enterprising individual travels through Russia buying up serfs who have died since the last census but still exist notionally, since possession of a certain number of serfs will enable him to apply for a large bank mortgage.

Patrick Ball, Fern Tree, Tas

Lest we forget

I write on behalf of my father Harvey Bawden, aged 97. Dad was a mid upper gunner of a Lancaster shot down on a bombing raid over Germany in 1945. Kevin Kee, a third-generation Australian of Chinese heritage, was the crew navigator. Only two of the seven crew survived. Kee’s widowed mother and two sisters vis­ited Dad at the farm when he finally arrived home.

I agree with Peter Dutton standing up to the bullying Chinese leadership. It is of concern to our family that Kee’s ultimate sacrifice is remembered. To this day Dad mourns the loss of his friend and patriot.

Barbara Ward, Willow Tree, NSW