Alan Jones seems to indicate this in his article Devoid of care culture RA digs itself deeper in The Australian of today when he writes: And how exactly did an Instagram post, composed of words long familiar from the best-known book of our civilisation, render the RA workplace ‘unsafe’.”
In an earlier post, Faz, you attempted to refute my assertion that it is necessary to resist attacks on the faith of Christians. Nothing to resist? Really? Felix Ngole’s case is another example of such an attack. As you say, the article in The Australian of today is behind a paywall, but I can give the basic information from its commencement: A British university that banished a Christian student from its social work course after he posted a ¬series of anti-same-sex marriage Bible verses on Facebook has been ordered to reconsider its decision in a landmark judgment by Britain’s Court of Appeal.
“The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrim¬ination,” the three High Court ¬appeal judges concluded yesterday. “The mere expression of views on theological grounds (for example, that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”
Christian lobby groups in Australia have seized upon the judgment as a win for freedom of religious expression, saying it could be “manna from heaven” for sacked former rugby union star Israel Folau in his legal battle against Rugby Australia.
They say the four-year legal battle waged by Felix Ngole against the University of Sheffield bears similarities to Folau’s experience after he was sacked by RA over his biblical “go to hell” post in April.
“This will send chills down the spine of Rugby Australia,’’ Human Rights Law Alliance chief John Steenhofsaid yesterday. I still do not know the details of Folau’s contract, but if it is of the form I have seen hinted at in a number of reports, it requires him not harm RA . If this is the case, there is a close link to the Ngole case inasmuch as the mere expression of Folau’s views on theological grounds does not connote that the person expressing those views will necessarily harm RA. That being the case, no breach of contract. RA wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of harm to itself.
Responses « Back to index | View thread »