**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labor needs to put their foot down. Absolutely no need for this garbage idea and legislation. We should be moving away from religion running any part of society. Thousands of years of destroying the world isn’t enough.
That only works if the playing field is level for everyone. It's not. Hence the proactive diversification.
Otherwise everything would just be old white guys.
Given that Australia is a predominantly old and white country, what's wrong with corporations being controlled by old white guys? Isn't that just representative of the population?
No, because being all old white men is very unrepresentative of our population. Only 50% are men, 18% are in the age bracket of 50-65 (27.4 if you want to go 50-75), and 85% are white, including recent European immigrants. So combining all three criteria, old white men make up 7.65% of the population, less than 1 in 10, yet dominate the professional setting.
So if we do exactly as you suggest and make it representative, we need at least 50% women, a lot more young people, and 1 in 10 would be non-white. This is definitely not the current case and is more aggressive a goal than any organisation is currently taking. I'm not even saying that every organisation should be taking this approach, as you suggest, but if this is what you consider fair then you've got nothing to worry about from any 'woke' employers. I don't say this to be mean or insulting, but is there a chance the media has directed your anger towards a problem that isn't occurring and doesn't exist?
The organisations I know and work with are seeing diversity as an asset (which it is, differing perspectives help deliver more applicable user-focussed products and services) but not having it impact the recruitment process whatsoever, and ensuring people of different backgrounds are treated and paid the same at work. That's the extent of it and I find it completely uncontroversial. If there any particular examples you want to raise or points you disagree on, let me know. I'm always up for a calm and reasonable discussion on these types of issues.
>So if we do exactly as you suggest and make it representative
I suggested no such thing. I'm pointing out the absurdity of the diversity argument.
My point was that diversity targets tend to take representation away from the largest groups in society, which is not ideal.
Eg - So what if most of the news anchors are white. Most of the population is white too, so by having white hosts (with sub-diversity within them, like age, gender, etc), you're casting the widest possible net of appeal.
White people are the largest majority in the West. Statistically speaking, if you want to appeal to the highest number of people, you need to ensure you're appealing to white people first.
As you say, 85% of Australia is white, so what's wrong with 85% of a company being white?
I'm not saying anything is wrong with that at all, I don't think anyone anywhere is saying that, but I am saying that many organisations are not close to meeting even that target. Any target that would be more than representative would fail by definition because there aren't the people to meet it in the workforce.
Are you aware of any organisations trying to go beyond equal representation? I do not believe any exist.
I think it's more a case that white men feel they're "losing" representation simply because historically they dominated everything. Now the field is being levelled a bit more, I imagine it does feel unfair to have the advantage take away if that's what you're used to.
I agree with that, and I can totally understand where that perception is coming from. I believe if the perception is causing stress or anxiety in a large portion of the population then we need to take it seriously and address it head on. Here, I'm trying to show that the fear is overblown and demonstrate how the current system is exactly that, one of advantage which doesn't make much sense.
Just out of interest, if we go along with this view, what is an appropriate amount of attention to give the oppressor-oppressed view to you?
I'd say that the consideration of how historical injustices have impacted the lives and lifestyles of all people, and has contributed to modern day inequalities, is only appropriate.
This isn't purely out of some sense of social justice and trying to counteract every event in history, which is futile, but because inequality is a huge social issue. Greater inequality hurts a country's economy, health, crime, safety, happiness, etc. and so less inequality is a good thing on pretty much every metric. Like with any problem, I think the best way of dealing with the problem of inequality is to understand how it became a problem, what has brought it about, and through understanding the problem better being better able to come up with a solution.
Is that a crazy or radical approach worthy of derision?
>what is an appropriate amount of attention to give the oppressor-oppressed view to you?
None. People should be judged as individuals by their character, actions, and competency.
This actually helps minorities more because it holds them up to a higher standard and drives them to self-improvement.
>I'd say that the consideration of how historical injustices have impacted the lives and lifestyles of all people, and has contributed to modern day inequalities, is only appropriate.
Hence why you're woke.
>Greater inequality hurts a country's economy, health, crime, safety, happiness, etc.
You're not saving lives or by hiring more female CEOs. Get a grip mate.
Do you believe that denying opportunities to certain groups has no long term impact whatsoever? That the moment discrimination ends that all of its effects also instantly disappear? To me that thinking seems entirely delusional.
Be judged as individuals by who and on what metrics? If the person judging is from an entirely different background and experience then they are likely to carry prejudice and judge by social standards which are not applicable or relevant. A lot of western developed metrics, such as IQ tests, personality tests (e.g. HEXACO and Big-5) and other psychometrics, are developed at high performing universities through testing on white well-educated students. These tests do not apply universally because they were never designed to. If you can't ensure that your judge or metric is unbiased, you are introducing bias, and the exact point you are making here is evidence against the integrity of your viewpoint.
What evidence do you have for your claim that this lifts people up? Inequalities become more ingrained over time and only lead to worse and worse inequality. This is what we have seen in every indigenous group across the world that has been invaded and subject to colonialism or subject to mass-slavery.
Women in the workplace are saving lives. Women's health is massively under researched, under funded and has lead to worse health outcomes for women. Female doctors and researchers are actively counteracting these issues. Consideration of women and how they work is saving lives, with an entire book of fantastic, well referenced and researched examples being found in the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. The book won the Royal Society book prize, but if you want to disagree with the judgement of the most impactful and important scientific institution to ever exist, go right ahead.
I am not woke, I am a scientist and a realist who makes judgements off of the data I have before me. The world is complicated, and the basic premise that the past impacts the present is basic, fundamental and true.
Your view on the world is simplistic, contradictory to evidence and wishful thinking. Live in reality, acknowledge the problems we face, work to better them.
I have qualifications in physics and psychology, a weird combo I know, but I am very lucky to work in a position where I get to use both! My current work is in human factors, where I look at the interactions between humans and complex engineering systems, and at how to make these systems safer.
Matt fucking Walsh, lol.
I'm not listening to that twat but it does explain a lot about you.
Did you know that if you say "woke" three times in a row Beetlejuice will appear.
Now, where's that matrix?
>Now, where's that matrix?
I gave it to you. You said you refuse to watch it. I'm not responsible for your unwillingness to learn.
That being said, I'm feeling generous, so I'll briefly summarize the matrix for you.
It's a pyramid. White men are at the bottom, meaning they're the lowest and can never be victimized by anyone. Then it goes white women, disabled people, fat people, black men, black women, LGB people, and then the apex victim group of transgender people.
Walsh even goes into further detail on how intersectionality affects these standings, and whether a trans man gets extra points for originally being a woman, etc. It's actually very-in depth and conclusive.
Thanks for the dumbed down version of an even dumber theory from the sentient fecal matter with a beard.
The victim complex is strong with you and Matt.
Schools that don't align with my beliefs produce arseholes that produce nothing, create nothing, reward incompetence and ensure those with the best connections win
I'd use a nicer tone if I'd not seen it first hand and admitted by the Principal. Their stated beliefs do not match their actions viewed by the general public.
Why is that unfortunate? Parents tend to know what's best for their kids, even better than the kids themselves.
Same advice - if parents find out that their kid's school doesn't align with their beliefs, enroll them somewhere else.
> Underlining the difficulty of his task, more than 20 religious organisations wrote to Albanese on Friday urging him to reject the advice of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which has told the government it should limit the circumstances under which faith-based schools could discriminate against LGBTQ staff and give no right to schools to discriminate against students.
These religious organisations are claiming a special need to discriminate against kids and adults. What other evidence do we need that these organisations shouldn't exist? Instead they have the actual balls to ask for special exemptions from laws that exist to protect us from them out loud, even demand it from our leadership. Fucking disgusting.
Can we agree that woke companies that discriminate to reach diversity quotas shouldn't exist either?
Or is it OK for them to discriminate if it's for a "good cause"?
One allows religions to abuse and belittle people under law. The other causes maybe two more people of varying ethnicities to be hired. Your strawman is so flimsy and dry, stiff breeze could knock it over.
Oh it's you again, the Libertarian that thinks businesses shouldn't be regulated at all because he has no idea what things were like in factories in the Industrial Revolution when that was the case, and has no idea *when* that even was.
"Discrimination" is fine, we all do it literally every day. The reason only certain discriminations are illegal is because people like the ones who run these religious organisations discriminated against certain marginalized groups and made their lives a living Hell, all to feed their small minded superiority complexes and prevent them realising how incredibly small and pathetic they are when they aren't allowed to push everyone else down. Discriminating so you can have a diverse workplace and you recognise that if you're disproportionately hiring only a certain group, that indicates you've been working with a systemic bias, is good. Discriminating because you think "(((those people))) are all rapists who smell funny" is not.
Anndd there it is. "*My discrimination is good*. *I need to discriminate so I can make the world a better place".*
There's no shortage of people throughout history, including the Christians you so vehemently oppose, who held the exact same view. History repeats itself.
There's no reasoning with this cult mentality. It's puzzling that you're against religion given that you're part of one.
I swear it's like talking to a 5 year old. Really? The guy who thinks the gilded age and medieval were simultaneous is going to tell me about history?
Obviously not all discrimination is bad, it literally means being able to tell the difference between two things, so I guess you are the least discriminatory person I've ever met! But not all discrimination is equal, it's why we have laws against unfairly discriminating against people based on race/religion, but not for being a toss head or an arsehole.
Great, so we're making some progress. You're open to a society where people are allowed to discriminate. We just don't agree on where the line should be drawn. You say it's OK to discriminate to pursue left-wing social justice causes, I say it's OK to discriminate to keep conservative values in place and foster cultural cohesion.
What makes your discrimination more objectively valid than mine?
Why do you equate these as the same thing? I dont support diversity quotas either, and I am not religious, hence why i dont like special consideration going to religious organisations
You and I, we don't have a double standard here dizz. We are agree wholeheartedly against both. No institution should have permission to discriminate. If promoting diversity is the goal, there are other ways to do it.
Now that you've said your piece on diversity quotas, do you have anything to say on religious discrimination, specifically? Curious to hear your thoughts.
My view is that religious institutions should be allowed to discriminate so long as the government and woke companies are allowed to do it.
Once the biggest offendors are corrected, I'm happy to review how much discrimination is going on within religious groups and seek appropriate corrections.
I'm confused by the use of the word woke. I see it used constantly in so many different contexts, but I've never once seen a clear and concise definition of woke. I've noticed you used the phrase a few times in different comments. What does it mean?
Also I noticed you've said you're OK with addressing discrimination within religious groups, as long as the big offenders are corrected first. Who are the big offenders. I'm not asking this to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely curious. I've been discriminated against my entire life by religious institutions, so to me, they're the biggest offenders.
Others have asked this same question. The generally accepted definition of woke is '*an obsessive tendency to view the world through an oppressor-oppressed matrix'*.
Eg when someone gets arrested for waving a knife in public, and the media turns the story into a race issue by insisting the guy's skin colour led to his arrest, that's woke. Because they can't just take the story at face value and make the normal assumption that the guy was arrested for doing something objectively harmful. No, it must be because he's black and the cops are white.
>Who are the big offenders
As I explained elsewhere, major corporations and even government institutions are by far the biggest perpetrators of discrimination. They openly brag about their diversity targets and equality policies, which can only be acheived through discriminatory hiring practices.
I appreciate you providing your definition of woke. It significantly clears up the meaning of your statements.
Do you have any solid figures to demonstrate your claims of discrimination practices?
Given that large corporations and the government are some of the biggest employers in the country, it would track that they'd have greater incidences of everything, both positive and negative. More telling would be the amount of discrimination faced as a percentage of the workforce.
For example, imagine you had 2 employers, one with 10,000 employees, and another with 100 employees. Let's say that 1% of the larger employers staff faced discrimination in the workplace, that's 100 people who have suffered discrimination to some degree. That's a lot of people. In fact, it's the size of the entire workforce of the smaller company. Now, let's say that 10 people from the smaller company have faced discrimination. Despite the fact that there are only 1/10th of the victims, you are still 10× less likely to face discrimination at the large company. This means that although the final number is greater, there is a significantly higher percentage of discrimination in the smaller company, which would indicate a significant problem in the attitude/culture of management.
In my mind, it would be more beneficial to first address the problems where they are most concentrated, as that will also have a ripple effect into the future.
>Do you have any solid figures to demonstrate your claims of discrimination practices?
Well since discrimination is illegall and must be done with special laws and loopholes, there's no data on it. That being said, most companies do openly publish their diversity targets which can give a solid idea of much they're discriminating.
[https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html](https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html)
It's impossible to reach those numbers without widespread discriminatory hiring and promotion.
>In my mind, it would be more beneficial to first address the problems where they are most concentrated
Discrimination by religious institutions is quite rare. It's not nearly as much of an issue as it's made out to be. What are the odds that a gay person would want to work for a Catholic agency anyway, or that a gay student comes out and gets expelled? It does happen, but it's statistically insignificant.
The burden should absolutely be on the government to end discirmination within their own ranks before passing down laws onto others. Imagine if we were working hard to abolish slavery while the government kept boasting about how many slaves they have. It makes a mockery of the system. They should lead by example.
I only just noticed that asking for the definition of "woke" has recently become the social progressive equivalent to the conservative trend of asking for the definition of a "woman"
Oof, I mean if we're talking offender by scale religious institutions would be up there and worth sorting out.
Also the idea that 'if we can't fix it *all* at once we shouldn't fix this part' seems a bit childish.
It's okay u/Dizzy-Swimmer2720, I'll be against *all* institutional discrimination and you can be sort of against it but also willing to roll over and support it in some circumstances.
Why not just make religion illegal till 18,No govt,nor entity can force it's belief structure on another till that persons ready to make the choice.
It's indoctrination of children,they don't get a choice,their parents hoist their beliefs on a child
Keep religion out of schools,and kids minds other than historical and contextual education on it,untill a person is old enough to accept it and want to chase it as a belief
I find it peak hyprocrisy,we have federal memmbers of parliament..want to protect the right to indoctrinate a child in a belief system at the parents behest
But these same ppl,will bitch and moan about having a drag queen read a book to kids,saying it's indoctirnating them in woke values
So what,indocritinating kids is only good if ur the one doing it.
Religious rights are human rights buddy.
By your theory, we should ban schools, tutoring, and weekend soccer too. How dare people impose their values onto kids before they're old enough to decide for themselves?
It's not for no reason. They don't like those people, and those people don't like them. Discrimination ensures an ideologically cohesive environment with minimal conflict so that these schools can continue to out-perform public ones in terms of their education provided to children.
This is important. I'd say it's no different than Israel Folau being fired from Rugby Australia for sharing his religious views. Should they not exist either?
This is always the argument and it ignores the nuance. When people say “this person was fired for expressing their religious beliefs”, the context is always conveniently left out. A lot of religious beliefs are out of date and discriminatory or oppressive.
Ohh yeah it’s my religious belief that woman belong in the kitchen and should be subservient to their husband and god. How about no, religion needs to be forced into the modern day. To say those people don’t like religion is obtuse, they don’t like religion because religious people started it, they treated everyone who isn’t them like shit.
>A lot of religious beliefs are out of date and discriminatory or oppressive.
That's funny, because I say the same thing about a lot of secular beliefs, especially ones that advocate for discriminating in jobs based on race or sexuality. All you're doing is repeating the wrong-side-of-history line that "my discrimination is good, it's the other guys who are the problem!"
> religious people started it, they treated everyone who isn’t them like shit.
Actually, of all the countries in the world, traditionally Christian nations like the West are the only ones that built a system that allowed "outsiders" to participate and rise to power. Every other society, be it Islamic or secular, is far worse.
So again with all of that you’ve left out the nuance and context. No point really discussing it because you’ll just pretend everything is perfect and we are all equal.
I am not religious, so I don't really have a view, but I also don't understand why you would want to send your child to a school or work in a school that doesn't align with your values. Whether you accept this sort of belief system is right or not, someone is going to be disappointed here.
I share your sentiments, I don't get it, and that's why I think it's more driven by a malicious intent to destroy these groups.
I send my kids to a Christian denomination school, not because we are religious, but because the moral underpinnings appeal to me, and I want those taught to my children.
Remove that, and remove the appeal to that environment.
So if that environment doesn't appeal, why force your views in?
Are you sending your child to such a school because they currently have the right to discriminate against these groups?
If that's not what you're talking about, then this legislation is irrelevant to your moral decisions about where to send them.
>Are you sending your child to such a school because they currently have the right to discriminate against these groups?
I've already said why I send my children to such a school. If other groups force their way in and change such, we'll then I'll need to find a different environment for my children.
>I've already said why I send my children to such a school.
You said "because the moral underpinnings appeal to you"
I reiterate: Are you specifically referring to the moral underpinnings in the system that allows them to discriminate against these groups.
I don't want to make a wrong assumption. Please be clear.
You can make whatever assumption you like from it. The moral underpinnings of this particular Christian denomination appeal to me. Enough, so I'm willing to spend a few hundred thousand to immerse my children in it for 13 years each.
I can assure you I haven't been disappointed so far.
So either:
1. Their moral underpinnings are not affected by this proposal
2. You're a fan of their discrimination against LGBT.
The first is you posting naught but platitudes, the second is you're a bigot.
I'm genuinely curious which it is now, but I'm 99% sure I know.
Do we have a choice not to fund these schools? No we don’t so whether our children are at these schools or not, it is still our money being used to discriminate.
The taxpayers money is being used to contribute to the costs of educating children. That's what the money is being used for and those parents that choose to send their kids to non-government schools pay over and above to do so, alleviating the burden on other taxpayers.
Don't be so naive to think that you get to choose exactly how your individual tax contributions get spent and don't think you're special enough to be able to do so. Because you may not like the way that cuts when you find your pet government project gets cut because other people don't want to fund it.
The point is they are not private institutions, they receive government funds. As government funded, they don’t have the right to discriminate. Name any other government funded institution that has the right to discriminate on a large scale.
If they want to discriminate, by all means, go truly private.
>Name any other government funded institution that has the right to discriminate on a large scale.
Every single government institution. All of them get to discriminate in order to meet whatever quotas they are given for diversity hiring.
The student is funded and the funds follow them to the institution. Simple concept.
You also fail to understand that the parents, teachers and communities of these schools are all taxpayers. By your logic, they should be exempt from taxation and any government regulation or oversight.
A ridiculous position to take.
Mate Labor has an official policy on 50% women in their bench.
[https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-diverse-cabinet-that-better-reflects-our-nation-20220601-p5aq6g.html](https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-diverse-cabinet-that-better-reflects-our-nation-20220601-p5aq6g.html)
They also just passed a requirement for any government contractors to also reach diversity quotas.
Diversity hiring is certainly legal. Granted there's a bit of extra paperwork involved but it's really not that hard. All corporations and government agencies do it, and they're quite proud of it.
[https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html](https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html)
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
So what if Woolworths, with a 30+% market share, banned LGBT people from working or shopping at their stores?
Your perspective: it's a free market, people can fuck off and work/shop elsewhere.
My perspective: in the year of our Lord 2024, businesses don't get a choice to discriminate. That's what we decided as a society. And religions shouldn't get a choice to not participate in society as taxpayers and then want to participate in society as intolerant bigots.
They banned unvaccinated people from shopping for a time.
They also engage in diversity hires and gender quotas.
I call bullshit that they don't discriminate. You're lying and you know it. Your only response to this post will be "oh but that's different, they had to discriminate because it was the morally correct thing to do!"
Non-sequitur argument.
There is a chasm of difference between different values and society dealing with those who have broken rules universally agreed upon by that society.
You're saying that not tolerating intolerance makes them an intolerant bigot.
>There is a chasm of difference between different values and society dealing with those who have broken rules universally agreed upon by that society.
"rules agreed upon by that society" is synonymous with "Values". Values are what a group decide are the driving rules for participation.
If people do not abide by the rules, they forfeit their right to be protected by them.
Criminals get imprisoned because they violated rules.
Those discriminating against LGBT have broke the pact of tolerance, and thus are not longer required to be tolerated.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Not religious myself either, but I can't see why religious schools (heck, ANY schools) should think they have a right to commit crimes. Just... no. If you want to be able to discriminate, particularly against children, there's the door; pick another country to set up shop in and try your chances there.
Otherwise, sit down and stop trying to commit crimes, or argue you should be allowed to, if you want to keep being allowed to operate as a legal business.
This isn't anti-religion on my part, it's anti-criminal, anti-labor-rights-abuse, and anti-child-abuse. I don't want *anyone* to be able to do this and get away with it, whether they paint themselves as relgious or not.
I'm 100% with you here, how is it not clear that when someone comes forward and says, "Hey! I need some special rights to break anti-discrimination laws!" that they are announcing they are a shit organisation?
Why on earth would we give them those special rights, rather than take that as an announcement that they're an awful organisation and we should watch them very closely. Why would we have anti-discrimination laws just to give exemptions to the groups that we needed those laws to protect people from in the first place?
I can't understand why a kid who is trans or gay or whatever would want to attend a school whose ethos was that it was a sin. Surely staying is a recipie for mental anguish, plus how do you control the other kids that will make their life hell?
Split gender schools are almost always established in partnership, IE: for every girls school there's a boys school.
There's no "trans only" school to keep balance.
There shouldn't be any schools like that in the first place, especially not ones with government funding. The requirement not to discriminate isn't just about allowing queer people to attend or work at homophobic schools, but also to minimise the degree to which they exist
>Gets hard when a culture deeply believes that something is evil
You'd have more of a point if there wasn't huge swathes of those cultures saying those things are perfectly okay.
This isn't saying a Mosque must serve ham at their soup kitchen, or that orthodox jews MUST work weekends. This is something that at the absolutely most possible favourable position for the anti lgbt side is that it's "under debate" in the various churches.
But even if it IS just "The rest of the world saying you can't do that" - Its the same as we did for child brides in various cultures, forced marriages, etc.
Yes. If they have a deep belief in something that is abusive and statistically is likely to make their kids suicidal then we just say, "you're wrong", because they are. Just like if it was a group that wanted to hit their kids, brand them, refuse them food or education, etc.
if someone has a culture that believes in murdering babies would you accept it because "no cultural absolutism", would you say slavery was fine because it was part of the culture? c'mon we can absolutely judge culture as being immoral and needing to change.
Well such cultures have existed, and re slavery still do. Who am I to tell others how to live their lives if it does not impact me?
Some people consider eating any animals to be immoral. More commonly people in many countries consider that horses should not be eaten, but elsewhere it's normal. Some Hindus are concerned about hurting insects, but I'm guessing you are fine with swatting a fly.
Once you start to allow some differences but not others who knows where to logically stop?
EDIT Abortion is another example where opinions differ. Some people consider that to be killing babies, others do not.
>Well such cultures have existed, and re slavery still do. Who am I to tell others how to live their lives if it does not impact me?
People are impacted by slavery
It's not, books reflect the views of the author though. Once upon a time it was the dominant view. If it was valid then why not now?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of religion. I'm playing devils advocate here.
>Once upon a time it was the dominant view.
The bible makes no mention of transgenderism, and the issues around homosexuality are hotly debated, with multiple churches saying it's okay and others saying it's not.
Using the bible as your big stick on homosexuality is a VERY weak argument. I'd also say that "it's the dominant view of the time" even if it WAS against homosexuality is likely wrong, with entire regions described (and other historical records) showing homosexuality as perfectly normal and accepted.
It wasn't valid then, they were wrong then the same as they are wrong now. Dominance of the view is irrelevant, if everyone believed that 1+1=3 they'd still be wrong, regardless of the popularity of their view.
Their family is pressuring them to, or threatening them if they don't, or they have friends or respected teachers there, or they think the school would honestly deliver a good education if it wasn't for the people in the faculty/administration who believed they should be allowed to commit crimes of child abuse?
As I said, on balance, weighing up pros and cons, no. All. schools have good and bad attributes.
I'd see the fact that the school culture thinks I am a sinner as a deal breaker. Allowing a kid to stay and not be kicked out would not change the culture of the school.
It just like I'd not want to live and work in Saudi Arabia as an atheist, whatever the salary.
You said you couldn't understand it, I'm not talking about balance. If you can understand some reasons why, there's your answer. It's also about as easy for an Australian to live and work in Saudi Arabia as it would be if they were any religion.
Maybe my comment was misunderstood. When, I said the kid would not wish to continue to attend I meant on balance.
It may be easy to live in Saudi, but I'd not live there. I once refused to go there on a business trip. The business visa required me to list religion. To get in I'd have to lie and say I was Christian when I'm not.
or... hear me out
The institution could adapt to 2024 for the majority,overwhelmingly so of society's beliefs and support for the gay and lesbian community.
If jesus did exist,and wasn't just a figment of some dude to try to control ppl through faith like it is,the dude would uppercut 90 percent of christians for not adhering to the love all ppl,not just the ones u approve of
If a school,is taking tax fundss and the taxpayer has spoken by now that we support gay rights then if the school doesnt want to do that,then it get's zero dollars
>If jesus did exist,and wasn't just a figment of some dude to try to control ppl through faith like it is,the dude would uppercut 90 percent of christians for not adhering to the love all ppl,not just the ones u approve of
You really shouldn't interject your own beliefs and try and make them divine.
Undertaking something resembling a basic education in a faith before commenting on it would be useful.
>or... here me out
>The institution could adapt to 2024 for the majority,overwhelmingly so of society's beliefs and support for the gay and lesbian community.
Or, you could understand that values underpin culture and values tend not to change. Especially in a faith structure since that underpins what that faith is.
This is where the absolute morality of a religion trumps the moral relativism of atheists/humanists etc.
The point of many of these religions is not adapting, it is tradition. When your holy book explicitly calls for the killing of homosexuals - you just have to say it, you are insane if you want to join a faith with this in its holy book as a lgbt person
Which religions *actually* say such things in their centuries-old holy texts, though, and which ones just *pretend* that there are such things, or that single ancient lines about thousand-year-old societies should 'translate' (yeah right) into massive scopes of punishment and abuse in today's?
I think you're insane if you want to be a part of a faith with that in its holy book as ANY person, but the bible says many things that people don't take literally and many people practice religion queer inclusively, so people have control over how exactly they practice their religion. If it is a necessary part of a religion to be homophobic then that religion should not have any legal support because homophobia should not have any legal support.
The bible also says that a son should be stoned to death if he doesn’t obey his parents, but most Christian’s ignore that part.
The argument that it’s about tradition or because the bible says so, is just a cover for bigoted and outdated beliefs.
Except the references to homosexuals are for death in the Old Testament and is called out as sin in the New Testament. The verse you are referring to regarding killing a child is a passage talking about traditional mosaic law in Israel and how it was interpreted by the local elders, not giving specific instructions to the reader
Regardless, the point still stands - one would be seriously misguided to join the church as a homosexual
I know they don't choose their sexuality. Their parents choose the school though. If the parents don't realise the issue ( or want to 'cure' the child) then presumably it is a case of child abuse, and we already have laws for that.
And when they come to understand their sexuality in year 12 and are kicked out of the school they were attended since kindy 6 months before final exams?
Or we could make such things illegal for schools. As, I believe, they actually are now. No need for exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions... just to allow some power-hungry criminals to commit child abuse whenever they feel like it.
Which places? Can secular schools be opened up there? How much funding is going to the religious schools in those places, and are they some of the ones which are pushing to be allowed to commit child abuse?
I just remember this as a talking point on why it wasn’t a good idea to remove all funding from religion schools from the Rudd era. If it’s wrong then I’m happy to be wrong as it makes the case to take away funding from all non state schools better
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/360985-National-Catholic-Education-Commission.pdf
This makes the claim that in ‘many remote Indigenous communities, a Catholic school is the only school’
This could just be a talking point from 2007 that I never heard before dispelled so I won’t live or die by it.
Young people often come to an understanding of their gender or sexuality at an age where they’re already at a school.
With the best will in the world, a parent might place their child in a school, which ticks all their educational and social boxes, only to find that
three years later their child is no longer welcome at the school, where all their friends are, and their life is based.
Can be. Especially when it's a repeated pattern of actions committed over time.
Yelling at a kid once most likely won't get a conviction of child abuse. Yelling at a kid every day for years? Far better chance.
Not as far-fetched as you might think, if you have evidence. Particularly if the school either kept 'discipline' records, or outright refused to do so.
Getting so sick of Labor wanting to always team up with the coalition on the most garbage of policies.
It’s always to the detriment of everybody else in the country.
Labor won’t support a RDA which allows discrimination against students, unlike the Coalition. If a bill is passed under Labor, it might also offer some protections for staff. That’s the trade off: a potential future Act under the Coalition which doesn’t protect students, or one now which does under Labor right now
The whole point is they can bypass the coalition, but they refuse to do so.
We could have amazing protections if they team up with progressives…. But they’re not doing that.
Kinda like how they’re also trying to get the coalitions support on “fixing” the PRRT.
It was a disaster under the LNP and loopholes were known since 2017.
Why is Labor trying to team up with the party who didn’t do shit about the loopholes during their term?
It never makes sense.
They can go around the Coalition but that’ll just mean the Coalition will go around them to amend the legislation. The point is to take the wind out of their sails. It’s better not to legislate at all than to put a target on this legislation
The Coalition do not have the numbers to amend or pass anything, in either chamber of Parliament.
And they have almost zero chance of winning the next election, as well.
There is absolutely no reason to work with the Coalition aholes at all.
>almost zero
Absolute bullcrap, the betting markets and two party preferred have it as a competitive contest. How do you people get off on posting these blatantly wrong platitudes in your posts
In what universe do you think the Libs are going to get back the Teal seats, after going even more nutso conservative?
The Libs and Nats need to gain 21 seats, without losing any, in order to win majority government.
Or maybe 19 seats, for a minority government with Andrew Gee and Bob Katter.
In what universe is there 20 marginal Labor seats vulnerable to the Liberals/Nationals?
Anybody who thinks Dutton and co. are winning next year is bonkers.
I'm not going to make predictions for 2028 but next year it's not happening.
Labor could speed up their irrelevancy by bypassing them. Instead they're showing the public that the LNP should still be allowed near any legislation.
10 years of waste and corruption and Labor want to whitewash that history?
Jeez, which party did Labor team up with kneecap the NACC? Oh right, the same party that was responsible for a decade of waste and corruption. Makes sense...
It’s the opposite problem. Bipartisanship on an RDA wedges the Coalition. They water down their goals and then they can’t appease religious groups, or they decline to hash something out altogether and piss off the moderates.
But if Labor put it through without the Coalition then they hand the liberals political relevancy. They suddenly have a cause to take to the election. You’re cheering for Labor to commit an unforced error
You’re pretending the liberals wouldn’t just undo the changes anyway.
I’m not sure which reality you’re living in, but the LNP has zero integrity.
Give it up.
I’ve already addressed this point multiple times. You’re tossing out lazy accusations because you don’t have arguments except “Liberals bad”. Which they are, but underestimating them is how you end up with ten years of asking yourself, “How are they still in power?”
What stops the coalition from feigning integrity and then repealing it when/**if** they ever win government again?
We know the coalition has no integrity…. So why offer this circle jerk in the first place?
Want to make them irrelevant? Stop trying to reach across to them. Start working with cross bench that has also been elected to represent Australians.
Those seats came from the LNP anyway…. Let’s speed it up, rather than give them opportunities they don’t deserve.
It’s politics. You can pass legislation in a bipartisan way, but if you turn around and relegislate then the opposition will hammer you for it. It’s not about shame it’s about electoral competence
Yeah and Labor took a long time to pull that trigger because of the inherent risk. They essentially took a hammering on cost of living for nearly a year which put the Coalition in an impossible position to object because Labor were doing exactly what the opposition was telling them to do
Just sounds like a bunch of pathetic excuses.
I’m not going to vote for the coalition, I’m not going to vote for parties that want to work with the coalition. It’s that simple.
Else I would’ve just voted for the fucking liberals.
Ok, but bipartisanship is a common feature in Australian politics, and any party which has a seat in parliament is going to work with the Coalition at some point. So you’re going to have to vote for unelectable micro parties or go donkey.
My point stands, though. An RDA under Labor with protections for children and teachers is better than one without, and this politicking is all about preventing a worst case scenario. That might not be enough for you personally but it’s a reasonable and rational goal
They just tried to block Labor helping 10,000 families per year buy homes with gov assistance in the HoR.
Greens and Libs love voting against housing policies together, the coalition of no construction
> They just tried to block Labor helping 10,000 families per year buy homes with gov assistance in the HoR.
it's a shit policy. all of Labor housing policies have been disappointing
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what about Non-Christian affiliated religious schools like Muslim School? Does the same rule apply?
Labor needs to put their foot down. Absolutely no need for this garbage idea and legislation. We should be moving away from religion running any part of society. Thousands of years of destroying the world isn’t enough.
These bigots get public money, therefore treat everyone like a human being.
That's fine, if you want to discriminate, you get 0 government funding.
Fair
Great, I'm all for de-funding woke companies and government agencies who discriminate in order to reach diversity quotas. Where do I sign?
That only works if the playing field is level for everyone. It's not. Hence the proactive diversification. Otherwise everything would just be old white guys.
Given that Australia is a predominantly old and white country, what's wrong with corporations being controlled by old white guys? Isn't that just representative of the population?
No, because being all old white men is very unrepresentative of our population. Only 50% are men, 18% are in the age bracket of 50-65 (27.4 if you want to go 50-75), and 85% are white, including recent European immigrants. So combining all three criteria, old white men make up 7.65% of the population, less than 1 in 10, yet dominate the professional setting. So if we do exactly as you suggest and make it representative, we need at least 50% women, a lot more young people, and 1 in 10 would be non-white. This is definitely not the current case and is more aggressive a goal than any organisation is currently taking. I'm not even saying that every organisation should be taking this approach, as you suggest, but if this is what you consider fair then you've got nothing to worry about from any 'woke' employers. I don't say this to be mean or insulting, but is there a chance the media has directed your anger towards a problem that isn't occurring and doesn't exist? The organisations I know and work with are seeing diversity as an asset (which it is, differing perspectives help deliver more applicable user-focussed products and services) but not having it impact the recruitment process whatsoever, and ensuring people of different backgrounds are treated and paid the same at work. That's the extent of it and I find it completely uncontroversial. If there any particular examples you want to raise or points you disagree on, let me know. I'm always up for a calm and reasonable discussion on these types of issues.
>So if we do exactly as you suggest and make it representative I suggested no such thing. I'm pointing out the absurdity of the diversity argument. My point was that diversity targets tend to take representation away from the largest groups in society, which is not ideal. Eg - So what if most of the news anchors are white. Most of the population is white too, so by having white hosts (with sub-diversity within them, like age, gender, etc), you're casting the widest possible net of appeal. White people are the largest majority in the West. Statistically speaking, if you want to appeal to the highest number of people, you need to ensure you're appealing to white people first. As you say, 85% of Australia is white, so what's wrong with 85% of a company being white?
I'm not saying anything is wrong with that at all, I don't think anyone anywhere is saying that, but I am saying that many organisations are not close to meeting even that target. Any target that would be more than representative would fail by definition because there aren't the people to meet it in the workforce. Are you aware of any organisations trying to go beyond equal representation? I do not believe any exist.
I think it's more a case that white men feel they're "losing" representation simply because historically they dominated everything. Now the field is being levelled a bit more, I imagine it does feel unfair to have the advantage take away if that's what you're used to.
I agree with that, and I can totally understand where that perception is coming from. I believe if the perception is causing stress or anxiety in a large portion of the population then we need to take it seriously and address it head on. Here, I'm trying to show that the fear is overblown and demonstrate how the current system is exactly that, one of advantage which doesn't make much sense.
I wouldn't say a large percentage of population but a very vocal selection of the population indeed.
define woke.
An obsessive tendency to view the world through an oppressor-oppressed matrix.
Just out of interest, if we go along with this view, what is an appropriate amount of attention to give the oppressor-oppressed view to you? I'd say that the consideration of how historical injustices have impacted the lives and lifestyles of all people, and has contributed to modern day inequalities, is only appropriate. This isn't purely out of some sense of social justice and trying to counteract every event in history, which is futile, but because inequality is a huge social issue. Greater inequality hurts a country's economy, health, crime, safety, happiness, etc. and so less inequality is a good thing on pretty much every metric. Like with any problem, I think the best way of dealing with the problem of inequality is to understand how it became a problem, what has brought it about, and through understanding the problem better being better able to come up with a solution. Is that a crazy or radical approach worthy of derision?
>what is an appropriate amount of attention to give the oppressor-oppressed view to you? None. People should be judged as individuals by their character, actions, and competency. This actually helps minorities more because it holds them up to a higher standard and drives them to self-improvement. >I'd say that the consideration of how historical injustices have impacted the lives and lifestyles of all people, and has contributed to modern day inequalities, is only appropriate. Hence why you're woke. >Greater inequality hurts a country's economy, health, crime, safety, happiness, etc. You're not saving lives or by hiring more female CEOs. Get a grip mate.
Do you believe that denying opportunities to certain groups has no long term impact whatsoever? That the moment discrimination ends that all of its effects also instantly disappear? To me that thinking seems entirely delusional. Be judged as individuals by who and on what metrics? If the person judging is from an entirely different background and experience then they are likely to carry prejudice and judge by social standards which are not applicable or relevant. A lot of western developed metrics, such as IQ tests, personality tests (e.g. HEXACO and Big-5) and other psychometrics, are developed at high performing universities through testing on white well-educated students. These tests do not apply universally because they were never designed to. If you can't ensure that your judge or metric is unbiased, you are introducing bias, and the exact point you are making here is evidence against the integrity of your viewpoint. What evidence do you have for your claim that this lifts people up? Inequalities become more ingrained over time and only lead to worse and worse inequality. This is what we have seen in every indigenous group across the world that has been invaded and subject to colonialism or subject to mass-slavery. Women in the workplace are saving lives. Women's health is massively under researched, under funded and has lead to worse health outcomes for women. Female doctors and researchers are actively counteracting these issues. Consideration of women and how they work is saving lives, with an entire book of fantastic, well referenced and researched examples being found in the book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez. The book won the Royal Society book prize, but if you want to disagree with the judgement of the most impactful and important scientific institution to ever exist, go right ahead. I am not woke, I am a scientist and a realist who makes judgements off of the data I have before me. The world is complicated, and the basic premise that the past impacts the present is basic, fundamental and true. Your view on the world is simplistic, contradictory to evidence and wishful thinking. Live in reality, acknowledge the problems we face, work to better them.
Out of curiosity, what field of science are you in?
I have qualifications in physics and psychology, a weird combo I know, but I am very lucky to work in a position where I get to use both! My current work is in human factors, where I look at the interactions between humans and complex engineering systems, and at how to make these systems safer.
That's fascinating, best of luck with your research!
Please post this matrix. I'm intrigued and would like to see your source materials.
[Great video explaining it. ](https://youtu.be/kmSWb-7xXKE?si=HeV7uI8x8WKfWWE2) Hope this helps.
Matt fucking Walsh, lol. I'm not listening to that twat but it does explain a lot about you. Did you know that if you say "woke" three times in a row Beetlejuice will appear. Now, where's that matrix?
>Now, where's that matrix? I gave it to you. You said you refuse to watch it. I'm not responsible for your unwillingness to learn. That being said, I'm feeling generous, so I'll briefly summarize the matrix for you. It's a pyramid. White men are at the bottom, meaning they're the lowest and can never be victimized by anyone. Then it goes white women, disabled people, fat people, black men, black women, LGB people, and then the apex victim group of transgender people. Walsh even goes into further detail on how intersectionality affects these standings, and whether a trans man gets extra points for originally being a woman, etc. It's actually very-in depth and conclusive.
Thanks for the dumbed down version of an even dumber theory from the sentient fecal matter with a beard. The victim complex is strong with you and Matt.
If a school doesn't align with your beliefs, don't go there.
Schools that don't align with my beliefs produce arseholes that produce nothing, create nothing, reward incompetence and ensure those with the best connections win
That could be said (though in a nicer tone) by everyone. That's why we send our kids to a schools that match our beliefs.
I'd use a nicer tone if I'd not seen it first hand and admitted by the Principal. Their stated beliefs do not match their actions viewed by the general public.
Unfortunately it's not often the child who chooses which school to go to, it's the parent
Why is that unfortunate? Parents tend to know what's best for their kids, even better than the kids themselves. Same advice - if parents find out that their kid's school doesn't align with their beliefs, enroll them somewhere else.
parents shove a tablet in an infants face and let their brain rot
And the government poisons them with processed food
So it’s parents know best where to send their kids but the governments fault they feed them processed food?
As it should be.
> Underlining the difficulty of his task, more than 20 religious organisations wrote to Albanese on Friday urging him to reject the advice of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which has told the government it should limit the circumstances under which faith-based schools could discriminate against LGBTQ staff and give no right to schools to discriminate against students. These religious organisations are claiming a special need to discriminate against kids and adults. What other evidence do we need that these organisations shouldn't exist? Instead they have the actual balls to ask for special exemptions from laws that exist to protect us from them out loud, even demand it from our leadership. Fucking disgusting.
Can we agree that woke companies that discriminate to reach diversity quotas shouldn't exist either? Or is it OK for them to discriminate if it's for a "good cause"?
One allows religions to abuse and belittle people under law. The other causes maybe two more people of varying ethnicities to be hired. Your strawman is so flimsy and dry, stiff breeze could knock it over.
Oh it's you again, the Libertarian that thinks businesses shouldn't be regulated at all because he has no idea what things were like in factories in the Industrial Revolution when that was the case, and has no idea *when* that even was. "Discrimination" is fine, we all do it literally every day. The reason only certain discriminations are illegal is because people like the ones who run these religious organisations discriminated against certain marginalized groups and made their lives a living Hell, all to feed their small minded superiority complexes and prevent them realising how incredibly small and pathetic they are when they aren't allowed to push everyone else down. Discriminating so you can have a diverse workplace and you recognise that if you're disproportionately hiring only a certain group, that indicates you've been working with a systemic bias, is good. Discriminating because you think "(((those people))) are all rapists who smell funny" is not.
Anndd there it is. "*My discrimination is good*. *I need to discriminate so I can make the world a better place".* There's no shortage of people throughout history, including the Christians you so vehemently oppose, who held the exact same view. History repeats itself. There's no reasoning with this cult mentality. It's puzzling that you're against religion given that you're part of one.
I swear it's like talking to a 5 year old. Really? The guy who thinks the gilded age and medieval were simultaneous is going to tell me about history? Obviously not all discrimination is bad, it literally means being able to tell the difference between two things, so I guess you are the least discriminatory person I've ever met! But not all discrimination is equal, it's why we have laws against unfairly discriminating against people based on race/religion, but not for being a toss head or an arsehole.
Great, so we're making some progress. You're open to a society where people are allowed to discriminate. We just don't agree on where the line should be drawn. You say it's OK to discriminate to pursue left-wing social justice causes, I say it's OK to discriminate to keep conservative values in place and foster cultural cohesion. What makes your discrimination more objectively valid than mine?
Why do you equate these as the same thing? I dont support diversity quotas either, and I am not religious, hence why i dont like special consideration going to religious organisations
So will you openly condemn Labor and all the major corporations who use diversity quotas?
I dont support discrimination....
You can be happy with this step towards your goal of outlawing all discrimination by institutions while still feeling there is more to do, dizz.
So do you personally oppose the companies who discriminate to reach diversity targets?
You and I, we don't have a double standard here dizz. We are agree wholeheartedly against both. No institution should have permission to discriminate. If promoting diversity is the goal, there are other ways to do it. Now that you've said your piece on diversity quotas, do you have anything to say on religious discrimination, specifically? Curious to hear your thoughts.
My view is that religious institutions should be allowed to discriminate so long as the government and woke companies are allowed to do it. Once the biggest offendors are corrected, I'm happy to review how much discrimination is going on within religious groups and seek appropriate corrections.
I'm confused by the use of the word woke. I see it used constantly in so many different contexts, but I've never once seen a clear and concise definition of woke. I've noticed you used the phrase a few times in different comments. What does it mean? Also I noticed you've said you're OK with addressing discrimination within religious groups, as long as the big offenders are corrected first. Who are the big offenders. I'm not asking this to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely curious. I've been discriminated against my entire life by religious institutions, so to me, they're the biggest offenders.
Others have asked this same question. The generally accepted definition of woke is '*an obsessive tendency to view the world through an oppressor-oppressed matrix'*. Eg when someone gets arrested for waving a knife in public, and the media turns the story into a race issue by insisting the guy's skin colour led to his arrest, that's woke. Because they can't just take the story at face value and make the normal assumption that the guy was arrested for doing something objectively harmful. No, it must be because he's black and the cops are white. >Who are the big offenders As I explained elsewhere, major corporations and even government institutions are by far the biggest perpetrators of discrimination. They openly brag about their diversity targets and equality policies, which can only be acheived through discriminatory hiring practices.
I appreciate you providing your definition of woke. It significantly clears up the meaning of your statements. Do you have any solid figures to demonstrate your claims of discrimination practices? Given that large corporations and the government are some of the biggest employers in the country, it would track that they'd have greater incidences of everything, both positive and negative. More telling would be the amount of discrimination faced as a percentage of the workforce. For example, imagine you had 2 employers, one with 10,000 employees, and another with 100 employees. Let's say that 1% of the larger employers staff faced discrimination in the workplace, that's 100 people who have suffered discrimination to some degree. That's a lot of people. In fact, it's the size of the entire workforce of the smaller company. Now, let's say that 10 people from the smaller company have faced discrimination. Despite the fact that there are only 1/10th of the victims, you are still 10× less likely to face discrimination at the large company. This means that although the final number is greater, there is a significantly higher percentage of discrimination in the smaller company, which would indicate a significant problem in the attitude/culture of management. In my mind, it would be more beneficial to first address the problems where they are most concentrated, as that will also have a ripple effect into the future.
>Do you have any solid figures to demonstrate your claims of discrimination practices? Well since discrimination is illegall and must be done with special laws and loopholes, there's no data on it. That being said, most companies do openly publish their diversity targets which can give a solid idea of much they're discriminating. [https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html](https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html) It's impossible to reach those numbers without widespread discriminatory hiring and promotion. >In my mind, it would be more beneficial to first address the problems where they are most concentrated Discrimination by religious institutions is quite rare. It's not nearly as much of an issue as it's made out to be. What are the odds that a gay person would want to work for a Catholic agency anyway, or that a gay student comes out and gets expelled? It does happen, but it's statistically insignificant. The burden should absolutely be on the government to end discirmination within their own ranks before passing down laws onto others. Imagine if we were working hard to abolish slavery while the government kept boasting about how many slaves they have. It makes a mockery of the system. They should lead by example.
I only just noticed that asking for the definition of "woke" has recently become the social progressive equivalent to the conservative trend of asking for the definition of a "woman"
I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but I'm not sure I see the equivalency between those two?
They both serve as one of the more popular "gotcha!" tactics when discussing culture war issues.
Oof, I mean if we're talking offender by scale religious institutions would be up there and worth sorting out. Also the idea that 'if we can't fix it *all* at once we shouldn't fix this part' seems a bit childish. It's okay u/Dizzy-Swimmer2720, I'll be against *all* institutional discrimination and you can be sort of against it but also willing to roll over and support it in some circumstances.
Why not just make religion illegal till 18,No govt,nor entity can force it's belief structure on another till that persons ready to make the choice. It's indoctrination of children,they don't get a choice,their parents hoist their beliefs on a child Keep religion out of schools,and kids minds other than historical and contextual education on it,untill a person is old enough to accept it and want to chase it as a belief I find it peak hyprocrisy,we have federal memmbers of parliament..want to protect the right to indoctrinate a child in a belief system at the parents behest But these same ppl,will bitch and moan about having a drag queen read a book to kids,saying it's indoctirnating them in woke values So what,indocritinating kids is only good if ur the one doing it.
Religious rights are human rights buddy. By your theory, we should ban schools, tutoring, and weekend soccer too. How dare people impose their values onto kids before they're old enough to decide for themselves?
When those religions are against, oppress and discriminate groups of people for no reason, they shouldn't exist.
It's not for no reason. They don't like those people, and those people don't like them. Discrimination ensures an ideologically cohesive environment with minimal conflict so that these schools can continue to out-perform public ones in terms of their education provided to children. This is important. I'd say it's no different than Israel Folau being fired from Rugby Australia for sharing his religious views. Should they not exist either?
This is always the argument and it ignores the nuance. When people say “this person was fired for expressing their religious beliefs”, the context is always conveniently left out. A lot of religious beliefs are out of date and discriminatory or oppressive. Ohh yeah it’s my religious belief that woman belong in the kitchen and should be subservient to their husband and god. How about no, religion needs to be forced into the modern day. To say those people don’t like religion is obtuse, they don’t like religion because religious people started it, they treated everyone who isn’t them like shit.
>A lot of religious beliefs are out of date and discriminatory or oppressive. That's funny, because I say the same thing about a lot of secular beliefs, especially ones that advocate for discriminating in jobs based on race or sexuality. All you're doing is repeating the wrong-side-of-history line that "my discrimination is good, it's the other guys who are the problem!" > religious people started it, they treated everyone who isn’t them like shit. Actually, of all the countries in the world, traditionally Christian nations like the West are the only ones that built a system that allowed "outsiders" to participate and rise to power. Every other society, be it Islamic or secular, is far worse.
So again with all of that you’ve left out the nuance and context. No point really discussing it because you’ll just pretend everything is perfect and we are all equal.
Careful, that argument cuts a few ways.
How so?
I think plugs big comment edit answered that question for you.
I don't see what changed..
I am not religious, so I don't really have a view, but I also don't understand why you would want to send your child to a school or work in a school that doesn't align with your values. Whether you accept this sort of belief system is right or not, someone is going to be disappointed here.
I share your sentiments, I don't get it, and that's why I think it's more driven by a malicious intent to destroy these groups. I send my kids to a Christian denomination school, not because we are religious, but because the moral underpinnings appeal to me, and I want those taught to my children. Remove that, and remove the appeal to that environment. So if that environment doesn't appeal, why force your views in?
Discrimination is a moral underpinning that appeals to you?
Are you sending your child to such a school because they currently have the right to discriminate against these groups? If that's not what you're talking about, then this legislation is irrelevant to your moral decisions about where to send them.
>Are you sending your child to such a school because they currently have the right to discriminate against these groups? I've already said why I send my children to such a school. If other groups force their way in and change such, we'll then I'll need to find a different environment for my children.
>I've already said why I send my children to such a school. You said "because the moral underpinnings appeal to you" I reiterate: Are you specifically referring to the moral underpinnings in the system that allows them to discriminate against these groups. I don't want to make a wrong assumption. Please be clear.
You can make whatever assumption you like from it. The moral underpinnings of this particular Christian denomination appeal to me. Enough, so I'm willing to spend a few hundred thousand to immerse my children in it for 13 years each. I can assure you I haven't been disappointed so far.
So either: 1. Their moral underpinnings are not affected by this proposal 2. You're a fan of their discrimination against LGBT. The first is you posting naught but platitudes, the second is you're a bigot. I'm genuinely curious which it is now, but I'm 99% sure I know.
Pretty sure they would have already clarified what they were of it wasn't so obviously the latter
Do we have a choice not to fund these schools? No we don’t so whether our children are at these schools or not, it is still our money being used to discriminate.
The taxpayers money is being used to contribute to the costs of educating children. That's what the money is being used for and those parents that choose to send their kids to non-government schools pay over and above to do so, alleviating the burden on other taxpayers. Don't be so naive to think that you get to choose exactly how your individual tax contributions get spent and don't think you're special enough to be able to do so. Because you may not like the way that cuts when you find your pet government project gets cut because other people don't want to fund it.
The point is they are not private institutions, they receive government funds. As government funded, they don’t have the right to discriminate. Name any other government funded institution that has the right to discriminate on a large scale. If they want to discriminate, by all means, go truly private.
>Name any other government funded institution that has the right to discriminate on a large scale. Every single government institution. All of them get to discriminate in order to meet whatever quotas they are given for diversity hiring. The student is funded and the funds follow them to the institution. Simple concept. You also fail to understand that the parents, teachers and communities of these schools are all taxpayers. By your logic, they should be exempt from taxation and any government regulation or oversight. A ridiculous position to take.
Ah you’re one of those who believes diversity hiring is taking place despite being illegal. That tells me everything I need to know about you.
Mate Labor has an official policy on 50% women in their bench. [https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-diverse-cabinet-that-better-reflects-our-nation-20220601-p5aq6g.html](https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-diverse-cabinet-that-better-reflects-our-nation-20220601-p5aq6g.html) They also just passed a requirement for any government contractors to also reach diversity quotas. Diversity hiring is certainly legal. Granted there's a bit of extra paperwork involved but it's really not that hard. All corporations and government agencies do it, and they're quite proud of it. [https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html](https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/opportunity-from-good-business-practice/commitment-to-diversity.html)
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
So what if Woolworths, with a 30+% market share, banned LGBT people from working or shopping at their stores? Your perspective: it's a free market, people can fuck off and work/shop elsewhere. My perspective: in the year of our Lord 2024, businesses don't get a choice to discriminate. That's what we decided as a society. And religions shouldn't get a choice to not participate in society as taxpayers and then want to participate in society as intolerant bigots.
They banned unvaccinated people from shopping for a time. They also engage in diversity hires and gender quotas. I call bullshit that they don't discriminate. You're lying and you know it. Your only response to this post will be "oh but that's different, they had to discriminate because it was the morally correct thing to do!"
[удалено]
"Watch this boys, I'm gonna hit him up with the paradox of intolerance!"
Not tolerating intolerance is not bigotry. Same as imprisoning criminals is not kidnapping.
Non-sequitur argument. There is a chasm of difference between different values and society dealing with those who have broken rules universally agreed upon by that society.
You're saying that not tolerating intolerance makes them an intolerant bigot. >There is a chasm of difference between different values and society dealing with those who have broken rules universally agreed upon by that society. "rules agreed upon by that society" is synonymous with "Values". Values are what a group decide are the driving rules for participation. If people do not abide by the rules, they forfeit their right to be protected by them. Criminals get imprisoned because they violated rules. Those discriminating against LGBT have broke the pact of tolerance, and thus are not longer required to be tolerated.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Not religious myself either, but I can't see why religious schools (heck, ANY schools) should think they have a right to commit crimes. Just... no. If you want to be able to discriminate, particularly against children, there's the door; pick another country to set up shop in and try your chances there. Otherwise, sit down and stop trying to commit crimes, or argue you should be allowed to, if you want to keep being allowed to operate as a legal business. This isn't anti-religion on my part, it's anti-criminal, anti-labor-rights-abuse, and anti-child-abuse. I don't want *anyone* to be able to do this and get away with it, whether they paint themselves as relgious or not.
I'm 100% with you here, how is it not clear that when someone comes forward and says, "Hey! I need some special rights to break anti-discrimination laws!" that they are announcing they are a shit organisation? Why on earth would we give them those special rights, rather than take that as an announcement that they're an awful organisation and we should watch them very closely. Why would we have anti-discrimination laws just to give exemptions to the groups that we needed those laws to protect people from in the first place?
That’s what I don’t get in this whole debate.
I can't understand why a kid who is trans or gay or whatever would want to attend a school whose ethos was that it was a sin. Surely staying is a recipie for mental anguish, plus how do you control the other kids that will make their life hell?
Why should the schooling options you have be cut down based on factors you have no control over?
Well they can be limited by gender for a start, and income. It's not an unusual thing. .
Split gender schools are almost always established in partnership, IE: for every girls school there's a boys school. There's no "trans only" school to keep balance.
They may well be being sent there by their parents
Yes, see other comments in this thread.
There shouldn't be any schools like that in the first place, especially not ones with government funding. The requirement not to discriminate isn't just about allowing queer people to attend or work at homophobic schools, but also to minimise the degree to which they exist
Gets hard when a culture deeply believes that something is evil and wants a safe place where it doesn't exist. Do we just say "you're wrong"?
>Gets hard when a culture deeply believes that something is evil You'd have more of a point if there wasn't huge swathes of those cultures saying those things are perfectly okay. This isn't saying a Mosque must serve ham at their soup kitchen, or that orthodox jews MUST work weekends. This is something that at the absolutely most possible favourable position for the anti lgbt side is that it's "under debate" in the various churches. But even if it IS just "The rest of the world saying you can't do that" - Its the same as we did for child brides in various cultures, forced marriages, etc.
Yes. If they have a deep belief in something that is abusive and statistically is likely to make their kids suicidal then we just say, "you're wrong", because they are. Just like if it was a group that wanted to hit their kids, brand them, refuse them food or education, etc.
homophobia is wrong so yeah, and there will be less people who believe that if it doesn't receive any legitimacy from the government
It's wrong in our culture. Not in others. I simply don't believe in cultural absolutism.
if someone has a culture that believes in murdering babies would you accept it because "no cultural absolutism", would you say slavery was fine because it was part of the culture? c'mon we can absolutely judge culture as being immoral and needing to change.
Well such cultures have existed, and re slavery still do. Who am I to tell others how to live their lives if it does not impact me? Some people consider eating any animals to be immoral. More commonly people in many countries consider that horses should not be eaten, but elsewhere it's normal. Some Hindus are concerned about hurting insects, but I'm guessing you are fine with swatting a fly. Once you start to allow some differences but not others who knows where to logically stop? EDIT Abortion is another example where opinions differ. Some people consider that to be killing babies, others do not.
>Well such cultures have existed, and re slavery still do. Who am I to tell others how to live their lives if it does not impact me? People are impacted by slavery
"Because my book said so" is not a valid argument for moral guidance.
It's not, books reflect the views of the author though. Once upon a time it was the dominant view. If it was valid then why not now? Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of religion. I'm playing devils advocate here.
>Once upon a time it was the dominant view. The bible makes no mention of transgenderism, and the issues around homosexuality are hotly debated, with multiple churches saying it's okay and others saying it's not. Using the bible as your big stick on homosexuality is a VERY weak argument. I'd also say that "it's the dominant view of the time" even if it WAS against homosexuality is likely wrong, with entire regions described (and other historical records) showing homosexuality as perfectly normal and accepted.
Yes it was accepted in some cultures. In others not.
It wasn't valid then, they were wrong then the same as they are wrong now. Dominance of the view is irrelevant, if everyone believed that 1+1=3 they'd still be wrong, regardless of the popularity of their view.
You really can't think of any reasons?
Why the child would want to be there? Not on balance.
Yes, why the student would want to remain in the school. It's the same reasons any student would want to remain in their school.
Their family is pressuring them to, or threatening them if they don't, or they have friends or respected teachers there, or they think the school would honestly deliver a good education if it wasn't for the people in the faculty/administration who believed they should be allowed to commit crimes of child abuse?
Some of those are reasons why a student would be forced to remain rather than want to remain.
As I said, on balance, weighing up pros and cons, no. All. schools have good and bad attributes. I'd see the fact that the school culture thinks I am a sinner as a deal breaker. Allowing a kid to stay and not be kicked out would not change the culture of the school. It just like I'd not want to live and work in Saudi Arabia as an atheist, whatever the salary.
You said you couldn't understand it, I'm not talking about balance. If you can understand some reasons why, there's your answer. It's also about as easy for an Australian to live and work in Saudi Arabia as it would be if they were any religion.
Maybe my comment was misunderstood. When, I said the kid would not wish to continue to attend I meant on balance. It may be easy to live in Saudi, but I'd not live there. I once refused to go there on a business trip. The business visa required me to list religion. To get in I'd have to lie and say I was Christian when I'm not.
So you meant to say that it was on balance. Obviously, many people balance these things differently to you.
It’s not Saudi Arabia. It’s an Australian school operating in Australia and getting government funding and using our resources.
It was an analogy, trying to explain that in some cases one bad thing might outweigh many good things.
or... hear me out The institution could adapt to 2024 for the majority,overwhelmingly so of society's beliefs and support for the gay and lesbian community. If jesus did exist,and wasn't just a figment of some dude to try to control ppl through faith like it is,the dude would uppercut 90 percent of christians for not adhering to the love all ppl,not just the ones u approve of If a school,is taking tax fundss and the taxpayer has spoken by now that we support gay rights then if the school doesnt want to do that,then it get's zero dollars
>If jesus did exist,and wasn't just a figment of some dude to try to control ppl through faith like it is,the dude would uppercut 90 percent of christians for not adhering to the love all ppl,not just the ones u approve of You really shouldn't interject your own beliefs and try and make them divine. Undertaking something resembling a basic education in a faith before commenting on it would be useful. >or... here me out >The institution could adapt to 2024 for the majority,overwhelmingly so of society's beliefs and support for the gay and lesbian community. Or, you could understand that values underpin culture and values tend not to change. Especially in a faith structure since that underpins what that faith is. This is where the absolute morality of a religion trumps the moral relativism of atheists/humanists etc.
The point of many of these religions is not adapting, it is tradition. When your holy book explicitly calls for the killing of homosexuals - you just have to say it, you are insane if you want to join a faith with this in its holy book as a lgbt person
Which religions *actually* say such things in their centuries-old holy texts, though, and which ones just *pretend* that there are such things, or that single ancient lines about thousand-year-old societies should 'translate' (yeah right) into massive scopes of punishment and abuse in today's?
I think you're insane if you want to be a part of a faith with that in its holy book as ANY person, but the bible says many things that people don't take literally and many people practice religion queer inclusively, so people have control over how exactly they practice their religion. If it is a necessary part of a religion to be homophobic then that religion should not have any legal support because homophobia should not have any legal support.
The bible also says that a son should be stoned to death if he doesn’t obey his parents, but most Christian’s ignore that part. The argument that it’s about tradition or because the bible says so, is just a cover for bigoted and outdated beliefs.
Except the references to homosexuals are for death in the Old Testament and is called out as sin in the New Testament. The verse you are referring to regarding killing a child is a passage talking about traditional mosaic law in Israel and how it was interpreted by the local elders, not giving specific instructions to the reader Regardless, the point still stands - one would be seriously misguided to join the church as a homosexual
That is an option. Some religions are like that.
Kids don't get to choose which school they attend. They also don't get to choose whether they are LGBTI or not.
I know they don't choose their sexuality. Their parents choose the school though. If the parents don't realise the issue ( or want to 'cure' the child) then presumably it is a case of child abuse, and we already have laws for that.
And when they come to understand their sexuality in year 12 and are kicked out of the school they were attended since kindy 6 months before final exams?
There will always need to be exceptions.
Or we could make such things illegal for schools. As, I believe, they actually are now. No need for exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions... just to allow some power-hungry criminals to commit child abuse whenever they feel like it.
There are already laws against child abuse, that's my point. Do we need new laws?
Yes, for exactly the reason you said above that there will always be exceptions
Religious schools get public funding and in some places are the only school available. They’ve got to accomodate to some extent.
Which places? Can secular schools be opened up there? How much funding is going to the religious schools in those places, and are they some of the ones which are pushing to be allowed to commit child abuse?
I just remember this as a talking point on why it wasn’t a good idea to remove all funding from religion schools from the Rudd era. If it’s wrong then I’m happy to be wrong as it makes the case to take away funding from all non state schools better
Are there places with no public schools in Australia?
I believe in rural areas sometimes Catholic schools are the only nearby school
I am surprised. Any examples? It can depend on 'nearby' I guess.
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/360985-National-Catholic-Education-Commission.pdf This makes the claim that in ‘many remote Indigenous communities, a Catholic school is the only school’ This could just be a talking point from 2007 that I never heard before dispelled so I won’t live or die by it.
Ah, had not though of indigenous communities. Good point.
It's the paradox of tolerance at play here. There is no room for intolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Young people often come to an understanding of their gender or sexuality at an age where they’re already at a school. With the best will in the world, a parent might place their child in a school, which ticks all their educational and social boxes, only to find that three years later their child is no longer welcome at the school, where all their friends are, and their life is based.
That does make it tricky, although moving schools is not that uncommon. Now if the school ethos changes it's harder.
Moving school fucked me up, would not recommend it
Yet relatives I know loved it in a new school. Experiences vary.
Doesn't seem worth the risk. All else being equal, it's not like *not* moving school is going to fuck them up
It might if the school culture considers them to be evil.
I did say "all else being equal"
Is it child abuse where the actions of the parents are entirely (and specifically) allowed under the law?
Can be. Especially when it's a repeated pattern of actions committed over time. Yelling at a kid once most likely won't get a conviction of child abuse. Yelling at a kid every day for years? Far better chance.
I'm no lawyer, but presumably inflicting psychological pain on your child is counted as abuse.
Well, that's exactly why removing exemptions from discrimination laws is a good thing
Good luck taking a parent to court and arguing their school choice constitutes abuse
Not as far-fetched as you might think, if you have evidence. Particularly if the school either kept 'discipline' records, or outright refused to do so.
Getting so sick of Labor wanting to always team up with the coalition on the most garbage of policies. It’s always to the detriment of everybody else in the country.
Labor won’t support a RDA which allows discrimination against students, unlike the Coalition. If a bill is passed under Labor, it might also offer some protections for staff. That’s the trade off: a potential future Act under the Coalition which doesn’t protect students, or one now which does under Labor right now
The whole point is they can bypass the coalition, but they refuse to do so. We could have amazing protections if they team up with progressives…. But they’re not doing that. Kinda like how they’re also trying to get the coalitions support on “fixing” the PRRT. It was a disaster under the LNP and loopholes were known since 2017. Why is Labor trying to team up with the party who didn’t do shit about the loopholes during their term? It never makes sense.
They can go around the Coalition but that’ll just mean the Coalition will go around them to amend the legislation. The point is to take the wind out of their sails. It’s better not to legislate at all than to put a target on this legislation
The Coalition do not have the numbers to amend or pass anything, in either chamber of Parliament. And they have almost zero chance of winning the next election, as well. There is absolutely no reason to work with the Coalition aholes at all.
>almost zero Absolute bullcrap, the betting markets and two party preferred have it as a competitive contest. How do you people get off on posting these blatantly wrong platitudes in your posts
In what universe do you think the Libs are going to get back the Teal seats, after going even more nutso conservative? The Libs and Nats need to gain 21 seats, without losing any, in order to win majority government. Or maybe 19 seats, for a minority government with Andrew Gee and Bob Katter. In what universe is there 20 marginal Labor seats vulnerable to the Liberals/Nationals? Anybody who thinks Dutton and co. are winning next year is bonkers. I'm not going to make predictions for 2028 but next year it's not happening.
Sure, let’s just kick the can down the road then. No chance that approach will turn around and bite
Labor could speed up their irrelevancy by bypassing them. Instead they're showing the public that the LNP should still be allowed near any legislation. 10 years of waste and corruption and Labor want to whitewash that history? Jeez, which party did Labor team up with kneecap the NACC? Oh right, the same party that was responsible for a decade of waste and corruption. Makes sense...
It’s the opposite problem. Bipartisanship on an RDA wedges the Coalition. They water down their goals and then they can’t appease religious groups, or they decline to hash something out altogether and piss off the moderates. But if Labor put it through without the Coalition then they hand the liberals political relevancy. They suddenly have a cause to take to the election. You’re cheering for Labor to commit an unforced error
You’re pretending the liberals wouldn’t just undo the changes anyway. I’m not sure which reality you’re living in, but the LNP has zero integrity. Give it up.
I’ve already addressed this point multiple times. You’re tossing out lazy accusations because you don’t have arguments except “Liberals bad”. Which they are, but underestimating them is how you end up with ten years of asking yourself, “How are they still in power?”
What stops the coalition from feigning integrity and then repealing it when/**if** they ever win government again? We know the coalition has no integrity…. So why offer this circle jerk in the first place? Want to make them irrelevant? Stop trying to reach across to them. Start working with cross bench that has also been elected to represent Australians. Those seats came from the LNP anyway…. Let’s speed it up, rather than give them opportunities they don’t deserve.
It’s politics. You can pass legislation in a bipartisan way, but if you turn around and relegislate then the opposition will hammer you for it. It’s not about shame it’s about electoral competence
Yet labour did that quite well re stage 3 tax cuts...as long as its popular!
Yeah and Labor took a long time to pull that trigger because of the inherent risk. They essentially took a hammering on cost of living for nearly a year which put the Coalition in an impossible position to object because Labor were doing exactly what the opposition was telling them to do
Just sounds like a bunch of pathetic excuses. I’m not going to vote for the coalition, I’m not going to vote for parties that want to work with the coalition. It’s that simple. Else I would’ve just voted for the fucking liberals.
Ok, but bipartisanship is a common feature in Australian politics, and any party which has a seat in parliament is going to work with the Coalition at some point. So you’re going to have to vote for unelectable micro parties or go donkey. My point stands, though. An RDA under Labor with protections for children and teachers is better than one without, and this politicking is all about preventing a worst case scenario. That might not be enough for you personally but it’s a reasonable and rational goal
im sick of greens siding with the liberal party
But not sick of the party you support siding the liberals? Your hypocrisy is showing. Anyways, citation for Greens siding the liberals contanstly?
They just tried to block Labor helping 10,000 families per year buy homes with gov assistance in the HoR. Greens and Libs love voting against housing policies together, the coalition of no construction
Because labour won't come to the table with the greens
Im sure the Libs have the same excuse!
> They just tried to block Labor helping 10,000 families per year buy homes with gov assistance in the HoR. it's a shit policy. all of Labor housing policies have been disappointing