The Ruddock religious freedom review is a sham.
During the homosexual marriage debate we were told that religious freedom would not be impacted.
Bill Shorten promised this:
“I can give this guarantee to the Australian people: I and Labor not support legislation which impinges upon religious freedom in this country.”
And Turnbull truffled in with this as well:
“I just want to reassure Australians that as strongly as I believe in the right of same-sex couples to marry, even more strongly, if you like, do I believe in religious freedom.”
And then both of them duly voted against every amendment put forward to protect religious freedom in the homosexual marriage legislation.
Instead, Turnbull asked Ruddock and his team to provide advice on how religious freedom should be protected. You know, after the fat lady had already sung.
And this team consisted of the High Priestess of the Temple of Militant Secular Humanism known as the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rosalind Croucher, and the Commissar of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, Annabelle Bennett.
You may not know who Annabelle Bennett is but that this will give you some background.
Over the last four years I’ve been dragged through unconstitutional anti-discrimination litigation by a self-described anti-free speech activist for my views on marriage, family and morality, all of which are derived from my Catholic faith. In February 2017 the New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that the President of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board had no power to refer these complaints to the New South Wale Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
This decision was upheld unanimously by the High Court of Australia in April this year.
Exactly one month later, Annabelle took time out from her busy schedule ‘protecting’ religious freedom to give the High Court the finger while she referred three more complaints from this activist against me to the tribunal.
So much for the human rights mob respecting the rule of law. They think they are above the law and enforcers of a new revolutionary morality on the plebs they’re forced to live with.
That’s the calibre of people who are now recommending how religious freedom in this nation should be ‘protected’.
Like I said, the Ruddock religious freedom review is a sham.
And the proof of the pudding is in the leaked excerpts of this report. They show that the religious freedom response to homosexual marriage will be to wind back the existing flimsy protections even further, enhance the powers of the Australian Human Rights Commission and then give oversight of the whole shebang to the Commonwealth and its Labor/Greens dominated Senate.
Of course, whatever the planned ‘protections’ consists of now will be whittled down further during the process.
And then Bill Shorten and his cronies will repeal the remainder as soon as they get the chance.
News that there would be any protections at all simply cued an immediate wailing frenzy from LGBT activists who are only intent on forcing the rest of us to shuffle by and drop incense at the rainbow altar of ‘Love Is Doing Whatever They Say’.
Not happy with legislating the impossible (it is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry and anyone who has passed Sex Ed 101 knows this), they now want religious institutions to pay their salaries.
The mob cried that Catholic schools should not be able to discriminate against gay teachers. And if they get their way there will be no such thing as a Catholic school in, oh, about three years. And that’s me being optimistic.
What remains will be an eviscerated historical remnant of what used to be called Catholic education. It will be complete with its own ‘Safe Schools’ program lovingly featuring an image of St Mary McKillop on a rainbow. There will be no difference between it and the state education system, except that the remnants of Catholic bureaucracy will probably be a little better at securing government funding while the modernist elements will probably be more enthusiastic at encouraging children to transition their gender.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are ‘acts of grave depravity’ that are ‘intrinsically disordered’, contrary to natural law and cannot be approved under any circumstances.
Given this, any logical person would ask why a homosexual would want to teach at a Catholic school?
The only answer is because the school is not Catholic anymore (that explains why there are already so many in the system) or because they want to subvert those that are.
And here’s proof that most aren’t Catholic. It’s just the Archdiocese of Brisbane’s education office tweeting recently that attendance at Sunday Mass is not important. That’s probably why 97% of graduates from Catholic schools don’t bother:
If you’re judging a level of lived Christian belief based on Mass attendance, you’re looking at the wrong indicator.
— Brisbane Cath Ed (@Cath_Ed_BNE) October 4, 2018
But for Catholic schools that want to be Catholic, homosexual marriage has opened the door to an attack on their very ability to hire Catholic teachers.
It’s not good enough for such a school to have a good maths teacher. The Catholic faith is a whole of life endeavour, not something remembered dimly on Ash Wednesday. That’s why a good Catholic school will strive to have a good Catholic who is also a good maths teacher.
A homosexual maths teacher may have all numbers sorted. But he is still a cause for scandal to the school community. The school cannot hope to have a Catholic ethos if it cannot discriminate against teachers who openly live a life rejecting that ethos.
Sure, at the moment the Ruddock religious review recommendations are that Catholic schools can discriminate. Provided they publicly state that they intend to do this.
Given the outcry already, if this is even enacted it will be more than a miracle. And there won’t be much to celebrate anyway. The schools that dare do this will be become battlegrounds with prep students having to break through the Antifa lines just to make it to class.
I’m yet to hear anyone claim that teachers don’t have an impact shaping the character of their students.
Gay teachers at Catholic schools will graduate ‘Catholics’ who think that homosexuality is good.
A Catholic school forced to hire such a person is no longer free to be Catholic. And that’s the whole point of this frenzy of fury from the rainbow activists. They don’t want Catholic students who grow into Catholic adults who won’t accept that homosexual acts are normal.
They can’t stand that thought.
Which is why they are now demanding religious freedom laws in Australia essentially remove the freedom from religious schools to be religious.
And the Ruddock religious review will give these bullies just that unless it is rejected.
The Lord knows, there’s enough evidence to reject it and the plan to increase the power of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Sex Discrimination Act has given this mob the power to wage war on men.
The Racial Discrimination Act has given this mob the power to wage war on white Australians.
And a Religious Discrimination Act will give this mob the power to wage war on Christians.
Thank God this mob don’t have a ‘Life Commissioner’. We all know that they’d be jetting around the country promoting late-term abortion and euthanasia for anyone who disagrees.
The solution to religious freedom will not be found until the state steps back from creating morality (that would be homosexual marriage) and accepts that there already is an existing natural order that is beyond the power of amendment by the circus in Canberra.
It must accept and protect that.
And instead of enhancing the powers of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and all the state versions mirroring it, they should be bulldozed into the ground.
That would be a real, concrete step towards enhancing freedom for all Australians.
And that way homosexuals who don’t get their rainbow wedding cake could do what the rest of us normal people do when we come across someone who doesn’t support our wedding: find a baker who is actually happy to make a cake instead of using the big day as a political weapon.