This move is unusual in that, at least according to the coverage of it, it doesn't appear to be motivated by the larger debate within the Anglican Communion. It certainly, however, seems to place...
This move is unusual in that, at least according to the coverage of it, it doesn't appear to be motivated by the larger debate within the Anglican Communion. It certainly, however, seems to place the Communion in an awkward position: how can the Episcopal Church of the US, or even many within the Church of England, accept being in communion with dioceses who exclude and persecute people they accept and celebrate, and even constitute parts of their clergy and episcopate?
This policy, after all, appears to extend far beyond just same-sex marriages. Interpreted broadly a ban on any events that might promote "expressions of human sexuality contrary to our doctrine of marriage" would appear create a ban on any events involving clergy who were openly gay. Even ignoring issues of celibacy: this appears to be about sexuality, not just sex. If, for example, Mary Glasspool or Nicholas Chamberlain were to visit Australia, would the church not allow current bishops, in Churches that are supposedly in communion with them, to have any events in the diocese? The ban appears as though it could extend to actual worship, so would that mean their participation in anything would violate it?
From a different perspective, it's disappointing that the diocese appears unwilling to simply be honest about their stance. Unless his words have been entirely mangled by reporters, Bishop Stead's suggestions that this is intended to protect the choice of individual churches if they wished to decline these events appears to quite dishonest. The policy removes choice entirely: churches no longer have the choice to decline them, as they must decline them.
And, as one surprising point that jumped out at me: is the policy's author actually arguing, in the article, that the policy bans residents of aged-care homes run by the church from watching the wrong TV shows together?
It's not. It's motivated by recent political events in Australia, and likely future legislative changes. In order to get same-sex marriage legalised last year, the then Prime Minister had to...
it doesn't appear to be motivated by the larger debate within the Anglican Communion.
It's not. It's motivated by recent political events in Australia, and likely future legislative changes.
In order to get same-sex marriage legalised last year, the then Prime Minister had to placate the religious conservative wing of his own political party. He did so by initiating an official inquiry into religious freedom, to find out whether legalising same-sex marriage reduced religious freedoms, and to investigate ways to protect religious freedom. That inquiry finished its work back in May, but the report was suppressed until it was leaked a couple of weeks ago.
In the ensuing kerfuffle after the leaked report, the current Prime Minister (who is one of those religious folks) was caught flat-footed. The report recommended (among other things) that religious schools should have the right to discriminate against staff and students on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity. The PM started by defending this, because it's the status quo in most states. After the public outrage about this, he switched to saying that schools should not discriminate against students.
The report had made a point of saying that, wherever a religious school does decide to discriminate against students, that school must have a published policy announcing how their right to discriminate is directly linked to their religious beliefs.
This move by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is obviously a response to that report. If any future legislation triggered by the report requires them to nail their colours to the mast and have a public policy linking discriminatory practices to their religious beliefs, then they'll provide it.
While it's their property and they're allowed to ban whatever they want on it, it's still an extremely bigoted move that should be punished by the law. I find the immunity the catholic church has...
While it's their property and they're allowed to ban whatever they want on it, it's still an extremely bigoted move that should be punished by the law. I find the immunity the catholic church has in such matters in Australia and other countries (especially in Europe where they're allowed to discriminate as an employer completely legally) hypocritical and wish it would end. However, that's unlikely to happen as politicians would anger a lot of potential votes with such moves.
Precisely my point. In many countries, the church is currently exempt from such laws for no good reason. They should apply to it, too. Including punishing and blocking such moves as described in...
Precisely my point. In many countries, the church is currently exempt from such laws for no good reason. They should apply to it, too. Including punishing and blocking such moves as described in the linked article.
I agree that laws should never have religious exemptions. What is the point of regulation if all you have to do in order to exempt yourself is to say you have strong convictions against it?
I agree that laws should never have religious exemptions. What is the point of regulation if all you have to do in order to exempt yourself is to say you have strong convictions against it?
This move is unusual in that, at least according to the coverage of it, it doesn't appear to be motivated by the larger debate within the Anglican Communion. It certainly, however, seems to place the Communion in an awkward position: how can the Episcopal Church of the US, or even many within the Church of England, accept being in communion with dioceses who exclude and persecute people they accept and celebrate, and even constitute parts of their clergy and episcopate?
This policy, after all, appears to extend far beyond just same-sex marriages. Interpreted broadly a ban on any events that might promote "expressions of human sexuality contrary to our doctrine of marriage" would appear create a ban on any events involving clergy who were openly gay. Even ignoring issues of celibacy: this appears to be about sexuality, not just sex. If, for example, Mary Glasspool or Nicholas Chamberlain were to visit Australia, would the church not allow current bishops, in Churches that are supposedly in communion with them, to have any events in the diocese? The ban appears as though it could extend to actual worship, so would that mean their participation in anything would violate it?
From a different perspective, it's disappointing that the diocese appears unwilling to simply be honest about their stance. Unless his words have been entirely mangled by reporters, Bishop Stead's suggestions that this is intended to protect the choice of individual churches if they wished to decline these events appears to quite dishonest. The policy removes choice entirely: churches no longer have the choice to decline them, as they must decline them.
And, as one surprising point that jumped out at me: is the policy's author actually arguing, in the article, that the policy bans residents of aged-care homes run by the church from watching the wrong TV shows together?
It's not. It's motivated by recent political events in Australia, and likely future legislative changes.
In order to get same-sex marriage legalised last year, the then Prime Minister had to placate the religious conservative wing of his own political party. He did so by initiating an official inquiry into religious freedom, to find out whether legalising same-sex marriage reduced religious freedoms, and to investigate ways to protect religious freedom. That inquiry finished its work back in May, but the report was suppressed until it was leaked a couple of weeks ago.
In the ensuing kerfuffle after the leaked report, the current Prime Minister (who is one of those religious folks) was caught flat-footed. The report recommended (among other things) that religious schools should have the right to discriminate against staff and students on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity. The PM started by defending this, because it's the status quo in most states. After the public outrage about this, he switched to saying that schools should not discriminate against students.
The report had made a point of saying that, wherever a religious school does decide to discriminate against students, that school must have a published policy announcing how their right to discriminate is directly linked to their religious beliefs.
This move by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is obviously a response to that report. If any future legislation triggered by the report requires them to nail their colours to the mast and have a public policy linking discriminatory practices to their religious beliefs, then they'll provide it.
While it's their property and they're allowed to ban whatever they want on it, it's still an extremely bigoted move that should be punished by the law. I find the immunity the catholic church has in such matters in Australia and other countries (especially in Europe where they're allowed to discriminate as an employer completely legally) hypocritical and wish it would end. However, that's unlikely to happen as politicians would anger a lot of potential votes with such moves.
Churches are but if this was a business or any other organization they would be blocked from this by anti discrimination laws.
Precisely my point. In many countries, the church is currently exempt from such laws for no good reason. They should apply to it, too. Including punishing and blocking such moves as described in the linked article.
I agree that laws should never have religious exemptions. What is the point of regulation if all you have to do in order to exempt yourself is to say you have strong convictions against it?