As I recently asked, how long before it’s illegal to be Christian in Australia? Here in Tasmania in particular, orthodox Christian teaching is being increasingly circumscribed by a vindictively litigious rainbow lobby. Whatever the Bible says, the permanently peeved pooverati are determined to ban it.
Among recent incidents, a Tasmanian bishop published a pamphlet putting the case that the Church’s teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman and was then hauled before the courts. When Catholic students tried to host their annual gabfest at the University of Tasmania they were banned from the venue. A Catholic education course advocating traditional marriage brought more legal threats from the groomer lobby.
But the legalised persecution is far from confined to Tasmania.
Harvest Christian College job ad sparks fury after making a very particular request, shrieks the headline in the Daily Mail. Being the Mail, of course, they’re over-egging the pudding. “Fury” is really just a few online cry bullies fluffing their feathers and squawking. Still, what on earth could this “particular request” be? No doubt some dire, oppressive Christian bigotry.
Harvest Christian College in Kadina on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula submitted a job listing on Monday for a Student Support Officer.
According to Seek, the successful applicant would need to demonstrate not only relevant qualifications, but a commitment to religious tenants.
Leaving aside the issue of journalists’ and sub-editors’ appalling grasp of basic English, these days… so fucking what?
It’s a Christian school. It says so, right there in the name. While it might be a bit much to expect, say, the cleaner or the lollypop lady to be a right old Charlie Church, a Student Support Officer at a Christian school would surely be expected to be committed to Christian “tenants”.
The requirement for an applicant to be churchgoing raised eyebrows online amid questions of its legality.
‘Is this legal under FairWork?’ wrote one person.
‘Although at a religious school, I’ve never seen a job ad that stipulates ‘regular church attendance’.
‘I mean, demonstrating a commitment to the ideals of the schools faith is one thing.
‘But, mandating regular church attendance seems rather discriminative to me.’
Still, others rightly questioned why someone not committed to Christian beliefs would want to work at a religious school.
‘Do you really want to apply for a job at a religious institution of [sic] you’re a diehard atheist?’ one user wrote.
Some of these people might benefit as much as journalists from an old-fashioned, Three-Rs education, but I digress.
There may be a very real reason someone opposed to Christian belief would want to work at a Christian school.
‘Applicants will need to demonstrate a sincere commitment to Jesus Christ and the philosophy of Christian education,’ the posting stated.
The applicant will also need to show: ‘regular church attendance; and, agreement with the College’s Basis of Faith’.
And that last bit is the rub. We’ve repeatedly seen Christian schools attacked and bullied into submission for having the temerity to have a clear statement of faith that adheres to orthodox Christian teaching. Such straightforward and venerable Christian teachings such as on marriage, sexuality and gender. Positions such as Student Support Officer, “Wellbeing Co-ordinator”, and so on, are often weaponised as Trojan horses by the groomer lobby — who shriek and wail when Christian schools beg to differ.
The posting comes only months after the Australian Law Reform Commission released its draft plan to update anti-discrimination laws.
Under the consultation paper, the ALRC proposed new protections for teachers and staff at religious schools from discrimination.
The proposal would allow religious schools to ‘maintain their religious character’ by giving preferences based on religious grounds.
Schools would also be permitted to require all staff, including teachers, to respect the ‘educational institution’s religious ethos’.
Daily Mail
Protection for religious schools has been a political battleground for years. The left is stridently opposed to extending such protection.
Three guesses why.