True Catholic

True Catholic
[ True Catholic ]

Sense at last

Posted by Mel on July 5, 2019, 10:37 am

UK religious freedom case a godsend for Folau

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/uk-religious-freedom-case-a-godsend-for-folau/news-story/9734d8c60d905f319422156e512d3172

“The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination,” 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.”

False equivalence

Posted by Faz on July 5, 2019, 10:56 am, in reply to "Sense at last"

UK religious freedom case a godsend for Folau

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/uk-religious-freedom-case-a-godsend-for-folau/news-story/9734d8c60d905f319422156e512d3172

This is a firewall-blocked link.

“The university wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination,” 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.”

According to this ref it goes on to say:

(12) The University’s approach to sanction was, in any event, disproportionate: instead of exploring and imposing a lesser penalty, such as a warning, the University imposed the extreme penalty of dismissing the Appellant from his course, which was inappropriate in all the circumstances.

A clear difference in the Folau case. Unlike the University, Folau was warned and, in the aftermath of that warning, a new contract was negotiated in good faith.

Folau signed that contract.

He could not have been under any illusion as to his obligations.

He breached the contract.

He may now believe that what RA was asking of him was unreasonable, but instead of negotiating or, if necessary, withdrawing from the contract on conscience grounds, he simply did what caused the problem in the first place.

It still has significant similarities -

Posted by Mel on July 5, 2019, 11:16 am, in reply to "False equivalence"

...especially because of the perceived offense, but the conclusion in the judgement is very telling.

The whole article...

UK religious freedom case a godsend for Folau
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 discrimination,” 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.
Read Next

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.

“Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence.’’

University bosses said Mr Ngole, who lives in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, had posted “derogatory” remarks about homosexuals and bisexuals in a series of Old Testament quotes posted on his Facebook account in 2015.

This included his post that homosexuality was “a wicked act and God hates the act”.

He also warned homosexuals they would be punished by “eternal fire”: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination. Leviticus 18:22.”

During an appeal in 2015, the university argued that 41-year-old Mr Ngole had shown “no insight” into why his post could be perceived as “offensive”. It also found his “discriminatory” hard line religious views raised concerns about his “fitness to practise” as a social worker.

This amounted to a breach of his professional guidelines, the university said, leaving it no choice but to remove him from his postgraduate social work course.

Mr Ngole told the university he was being “punished” for his faith and administrators had effectively demanded he renounce his Christian beliefs or accept the career-ending consequences.

“This is like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany,” Mr Ngole wrote at the time.

“I have been removed from the course for the expression of the Orthodox Christian viewpoint … that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.’’

In 2017, Mr Ngole’s case went before deputy High Court judge Rowena Collins Rice, who concluded the university had acted within the law.

That ruling was overturned yesterday when the three judges found the university’s disciplinary proceedings had been flawed and ordered the university to reconsider Mr Ngole’s case.

They found the university had adopted such an entrenched position from the start that it had failed to ever consider a compromise.

Neil Foster, an associate professor at Newcastle Law School and an evangelical Christian, said the court had gone to the heart of the religious freedom debate.

The university’s “astonishing proposition”, he said, was that a Christian social worker, or any worker in health and social services who expressed anti-same-sex views, even in a church, could be removed from their position.

Deborah Cornwall
THE AUSTRALIAN Friday, July 5, 2019 Today's Paper

The key difference

Posted by Faz on July 5, 2019, 11:26 am, in reply to "It still has significant similarities -"

The key difference:

They found the university had adopted such an entrenched position from the start that it had failed to ever consider a compromise.

The attempt by RA to resolve this is well-documented and we can only assume that Folau was satisfied with that process enough to sign a new contract.

Folau's signature is the difference. He accepted benefits with obligations.

If those obligations were an affront, he decided at the time, that it was worth it.

Not exact is not the same as false

Posted by John on July 5, 2019, 11:27 am, in reply to "False equivalence"

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.

Over the top outrage

Posted by Mel on July 5, 2019, 11:50 am, in reply to "The key difference"

If those obligations were an affront,
he decided at the time, that it was worth it.

I think RA dug their own hole by the 'outrage' they have caused. In the UK it appears that it is now clear that Christians have the legal right to express Biblical views on social media and elsewhere in public without fear for their professional careers.That must also include footballers, right Faz?

More...
https://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/freedom/felix-ngole-wins-appeal-in-victory-for-christian-freedoms

Or was it . . .

Posted by John on July 5, 2019, 12:14 pm, in reply to " Not exact is not the same as false"

. . rendering the workplace “unsafe”? Was that the wording of the contract? Was RA concerned that its burly players - tatts and all – would feel that their workplace was unsafe because Izzy put a few words up on Instagram?

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’.”

Previous Message

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.

Perhaps this is more equivalent

Posted by Mel on July 5, 2019, 12:21 pm, in reply to "False equivalence"

Seems to me the issue is more common , more serious more concerning than I thought. Christians and all people concerned with freedom of religious expression should be paying attention. And it's not only freedom of religious expression it's the right to refuse participating in gay activism.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/32752-ikea-faces-backlash-after-firing-worker-over-biblical-stand-on-homosexuality

Even in the UK

Posted by Faz on July 5, 2019, 3:41 pm, in reply to "Over the top outrage"

I think RA dug their own hole by the 'outrage' they have caused. In the UK it appears that it is now clear that Christians have the legal right to express Biblical views on social media and elsewhere in public without fear for their professional careers.That must also include footballers, right Faz?

Folau has that right now except when he agrees, in a good faith deal and a signed contract, not to.

He made a free choice and struck up an agreement.

He broke that legal agreement.

There are consequences for doing that ... even in the UK.

Put to death?

Posted by Faz on July 5, 2019, 6:53 pm, in reply to "Perhaps this is more equivalent"

So your friend, Tomasz, quotes Leviticus:

Leviticus 20:13, which warns: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Does that reflect your view?

Why do you sound shocked?

Posted by Mel on July 5, 2019, 7:10 pm, in reply to "Put to death?"

The OT has been around for over two thousand years, but there are christian teachings based on it's sexual morality. I've answered your question elsewhere, stop pretending to be baffled.

And one from the recent past for free speech zealots

Posted by Faz on July 6, 2019, 9:23 am, in reply to "Sense at last"

'Is it really the Christian way?' Teacher who lost job after revealing he was gay speaks out

A teacher who lost his job after telling his school he was gay is speaking out to raise awareness of the laws that allow church schools to dismiss staff based on their beliefs.

Craig Campbell's employment as a relief teacher was discontinued after he told the Baptist college, south of Perth, he was in a same-sex relationship.

MORE

oh boo hoo

Posted by Mel on July 6, 2019, 1:12 pm, in reply to "And one from the recent past for free speech zealots"

Big stick and tissues

It's like a person going into the Outback Steakhouse and demanding it have an all vegan menu.

This is funny-

"he had a very clear knowledge of the college's Christian values and related beliefs."

Mr Campbell has since been employed in the state school system, but Folau won't be touched by any other code in the country that he lives in (mainly because of the big sponsors and their big sticks) so that is a true RIGHTS issue.
And what's more parents are tax payers too so they have every right for their religious school to be funded. Otherwise a tax rebate on their personal returns would be enforced, as they would have been discriminated against.
Anyway a VERY one sided article .

Weapons alert

Posted by Mel on July 6, 2019, 1:15 pm, in reply to "And one from the recent past for free speech zealots"

1. The big stick - we'll beat you into silence using the media, public shaming, boycotts, ridicule and slander and use big business money to support us.

2. The couch - we'll psycho analyze you and proclaim you a fanatic,a hater -deflecting attention and blame away from immoral behavior

3. Tissues - we'll cry out and whine about your words , because they hurt our feelings , but who cares about our souls.

4. Paper - we'll make you sign contracts in order to keep you down, tame, fearful or sue you

Don’t ask; don’t tell.

Posted by John on July 6, 2019, 1:50 pm, in reply to "And one from the recent past for free speech zealots"

The problem arises because many people these days - you being one of them, Faz - insist on trying to make “Christian” mean spineless. Yes, to be Christian one must love one’s neighbour. The problem is that “love” is never defined correctly. While it remains in the realm of “fuzzy, warm inner feeling”, you will never be really talking about love, but simply sentiment, and such “love” is not what the Christian is supposed to practice.

Love, correctly defined, means the willing of good towards the other, and the willing of good does not include countenancing what is harmful to the soul of the other.

Specifically in regard to this case, if the teacher had not sought to “out” himself, all might have been well, but by proclaiming himself to be homosexual, he was stating that in his view, homosexuality was not immoral, and indicating his willingness to be a source of scandal to the rest of the school population. Fake “Christianity” would ignore it; true Christianity demanded that the scandal be averted.

Pot and kettle

Posted by Faz on July 6, 2019, 2:29 pm, in reply to "oh boo hoo"

Big stick and tissues

It's like a person going into the Outback Steakhouse and demanding it have an all vegan menu.

Or signing up to an contract and then breaking it. I knew you'd see the parallel!

This is funny-
"he had a very clear knowledge of the college's Christian values and related beliefs."

Folau had an even clearer knowledge of what he signed up for.

Mr Campbell has since been employed in the state school system, but Folau won't be touched by any other code in the country that he lives in (mainly because of the big sponsors and their big sticks) so that is a true RIGHTS issue.

So that's the issue? I thought it was free speech?

And what's more parents are tax payers too so they have every right for their religious school to be funded. Otherwise a tax rebate on their personal returns would be enforced, as they would have been discriminated against.
Anyway a VERY one sided article.

LOL. The pot calls the kettle black

Non fake Christians

Posted by Faz on July 6, 2019, 8:38 pm, in reply to "Don’t ask; don’t tell."

The problem arises because many people these days - you being one of them, Faz ...

Wow, this sounds serious.

... insist on trying to make “Christian” mean spineless. Yes, to be Christian one must love one’s neighbour. The problem is that “love” is never defined correctly.

A definition for love?

While it remains in the realm of “fuzzy, warm inner feeling”, you will never be really talking about love, but simply sentiment, and such “love” is not what the Christian is supposed to practice.

So, the notion of “fuzzy, warm inner feeling” is a completely novel one in the context of this subject area.

Not only is it novel, it's your assessment. Is this the beginning of a Straw Man argument?

Love, correctly defined, means the willing of good towards the other, and the willing of good does not include countenancing what is harmful to the soul of the other.

Who says this is 'correct'?

Specifically in regard to this case ...

Good ... back on track.

if the teacher had not sought to “out” himself, all might have been well, but by proclaiming himself to be homosexual, he was stating that in his view, homosexuality was not immoral, and indicating his willingness to be a source of scandal to the rest of the school population.

Homosexuality is not immoral. That simply is not 'correct'.

Pope Francis made that clear earlier in the year, here. Now he says things about this and other issues that I don't agree with, but on this fundamental point, I think he reflects the current 'correct' thinking particularly this part of the Catechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Fake “Christianity” would ignore it; true Christianity demanded that the scandal be averted.

You haven't mentioned 'free speech' at all in this explanation.

If Folau, breaks his contract and loses his job as a result, because he wants to exercise his free speech, then the same logic should apply to Campbell.

Folau simply can't claim that his acts are based on his religious beliefs. His actions are a measure of his particular take on Christianity, it is not essential to his faith. Even Assemblies of God adherents may choose this course of action or not and still be considered part of that community.

But, breaking a freely signed contract -- essentially a promise -- is immoral. Why isn't that a 'scandal' needing to be called out by 'non fake' Christians?

Dodge and weave

Posted by Faz on July 6, 2019, 8:40 pm, in reply to "Why do you sound shocked?"

The OT has been around for over two thousand years, but there are christian teachings based on it's sexual morality. I've answered your question elsewhere, stop pretending to be baffled.

LOL. Talk about dodge and weave!

Really fake arguments

Posted by John on July 6, 2019, 9:02 pm, in reply to "Non fake Christians"

You just can't do it, can you? Mount a straight argument, I mean.

You know I was not talking about homosexual tendencies, Faz, but homosexual activity. Campbell stated that he was in a same-sex relationship. You can pretend that that means they hold hands and whisper sweet nothings to each other and no more if you want to, but that is not what being in a same-sex relationship is normally construed to be.

Normally construed to be

Posted by Faz on July 7, 2019, 8:23 am, in reply to "Really fake arguments"

You just can't do it, can you? Mount a straight argument, I mean.

You mean I disagree with you on this issue? Yes, I disagree with you on this issue.

You know I was not talking about homosexual tendencies, Faz, but homosexual activity.

Seriously John, this is a written medium. I responded to what you wrote. The distinction is critical and I make no apology for picking you up on it. You are the champion of a non 'spineless' Christianity.

Campbell stated that he was in a same-sex relationship. You can pretend that that means they hold hands and whisper sweet nothings to each other and no more if you want to, but that is not what being in a same-sex relationship is normally construed to be.

So, your judgement of Campbell -- and it is a judgement -- is based on what it is 'normally construed to be'?

I don't know in detail how Campbell conducts his life an neither do you. The difference is you make assumptions that he's a sinner.

To construe is 'to deduce by inference'; not by fact, by inference.

It is a clear logical fallacy to assert that an individual is doing something because it is 'normally construed to be'. 'Normally construed to be' cannot be measured or proven (or disproven) and, even if it could, it is no better than a prejudice or an assumed set of opinions.

It is also a moral problem for a 'true Christian'. The NT makes it abundantly clear that judging others is a precarious business.

'Normally construed to be' is about as precarious as it gets.

Thoroughly equipped

Posted by Mel on July 7, 2019, 4:02 pm, in reply to "Normally construed to be"

It is also a moral problem for a 'true Christian'. The NT makes it abundantly clear that judging others is a precarious business.

Jesus tells us to look at our own sin before judging someone else, that is true. The NT tells us we are to confront others' sin with truth.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16

A high bar

Posted by Faz on July 7, 2019, 5:13 pm, in reply to "Thoroughly equipped"

Jesus tells us to look at our own sin before judging someone else, that is true.

It's more than that though. He says that we must deal with the log in our eye before we deal with the splinter in others and that we can cast the first stone (of judgement) when we are without sin. He also says that we will be judged as we judge others.

These are high bars ... for all intents and purposes the best course of action for us is not to judge.

John seeks to judge Campbell on the basis of what is 'normally construed to be'. That's a low bar.

The NT tells us we are to confront others' sin with truth.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16

This is not analogous to asserting that an individual you don't actually know is a sinner.

You are splitting hairs. nt

Posted by Mel on July 7, 2019, 8:46 pm, in reply to "A high bar"

You are pointing to splinters.

Posted by Faz on July 8, 2019, 11:32 am, in reply to "You are splitting hairs. nt"

Don’t ask; don’t tell?

Posted by Faz on July 8, 2019, 11:38 am, in reply to "Don’t ask; don’t tell."

I think 'don't ask, don't tell' is dishonest but if it applies to Campbell, why not Folau?

Boo hoo Faz

Posted by Mel on July 9, 2019, 6:32 pm, in reply to "You are pointing to splinters. "

Previous Message

« Back to index

[ True Catholic ]