Christians need to "suck it up" and "calm down"

[arthwollipot]

Tim Costello: 'Christians need to calm down' and 'suck it up' over alleged persecution

Baptist minister says there is no real risk of religious persecution in Australia compared with many other countries

The social justice advocate Tim Costello has called on his fellow Christians to “calm down” about their alleged persecution, amid a brewing political storm over how the government should act to protect against religious discrimination.

Costello, speaking in his new role as a senior fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity, also warned that the federal government should not try to legislate to cover “extreme” examples of competing rights, citing the high-profile Israel Folau case as an example.

The former chief advocate for World Vision Australia is backing the recommendations of the Ruddock review into religious discrimination, but has dismissed calls from conservative Coalition MPs for a religious freedom bill.

He said he did not see any evidence of the persecution of Christians in Australia, and said they needed to “suck it up”, just like Jesus.

“I don’t think there is a risk of persecution – Christians need to calm down,” Costello said.

“I would say to Christians if you want to see persecution, let me take you to places where there is persecution of Christians and other religious groups – let me take you to Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and I will show you persecution.

“And if they read their Bibles, Jesus said the world will hate you and misunderstand you for following me, but to go on following, loving, serving – so I would say, just suck it up.

“Jesus didn’t go around demanding legislation to protect his rights. Jesus didn’t advocate for freedom of religion legislation.”

I met Tim Costello once when I was working in the aid and development sector, and he was CEO of World Vision Australia. If you're familiar with Australian politicians, he's Peter Costello's brother. Of all the Howard cabinet, he was one of the more reasonable. Tim also is pretty reasonable - during the scandal when World Vision America was accused of proselytising in return for aid, he made it clear that World Vision Australia was not engaging, and would not engage in such practices.

 

[theprestige]

I eagerly await Costello's condemnation here, for his blatant whataboutism.

 

[arthwollipot]

I eagerly await Costello's condemnation here, for his blatant whataboutism.

Do you think Christians are being persecuted in Australia?

No, wait, you don't have a great deal of knowledge of Australian culture. Let's ask whether you think Christians are being persecuted in your home country instead.

 

[Venom]

sharing this with members of my church.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think Christians are being persecuted in Australia?



No, wait, you don't have a great deal of knowledge of Australian culture. Let's ask whether you think Christians are being persecuted in your home country instead.

Worse than in Australia, apparently.

But you're trying to distract from my point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Worse than in Australia, apparently.

But you're trying to distract from my point.

Of course. Your point is that it doesn't matter that Christians are genuinely being systematically persecuted in other countries; what's important is that they get special consideration and exemptions to laws that apply to everyone else here, just because they exist.

 

[theprestige]

Of course. Your point is that it doesn't matter that Christians are genuinely being systematically persecuted in other countries; what's important is that they get special consideration and exemptions to laws that apply to everyone else here, just because they exist.

Arth - and I ask this in all sincerity - is there anything I could possibly say, to convince that my point was simply about the hypocrisy of "whataboutism!" on this forum?

 

[arthwollipot]

Conservatives agitate for religious freedom law but Coalition voters not on board – Essential poll

Survey shows majority of Australians don’t want employers to be able to dictate what employees say outside of work

Conservatives within the Morrison government are campaigning for a religious freedom bill but less than half of Coalition voters argue that there should be stronger laws to protect people who express their religious views in public, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll.

While only 44% of Coalition voters would back a proposal like the one now being sought by a group of rightwingers in the government, support for the idea across all the voting cohorts is even more tepid, with only 38% backing the move (16% strongly and 22% somewhat).

Clear majorities in the sample also agree with the statements “it is only right that people consider how what they say can affect others” (69%) and “people should not be able to argue religious freedoms to abuse others” (64%).

While the poll suggests Australians are reluctant to codify freedom of religious expression, the latest poll also indicates Australians feel constrained in what they can say and are concerned about the capacity of employers to dictate behaviour outside working hours.

A majority, 64%, agree that people now hesitate before saying what they really think because they are afraid of how others will react, and a majority, 58%, agree that employers should not have the right to dictate what their employees say outside of work.

People are saying that employers should not be able to say what their employees say outside of work, but somehow that does not apply to people employed by the Public Service.

The Australian Public Service Commission's social media guidelines make it clear that criticising the government, a department, a minister, or the Prime Minister on social media will almost always be considered a breach of the Public Service Code of Conduct, and could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

Note: The above is intended as a statement of fact, and should not be interpreted as a criticism of any policy or policies of the Australian Public Service, any Australian Government department, or of any Minister or Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

 

[arthwollipot]

Arth - and I ask this in all sincerity - is there anything I could possibly say, to convince that my point was simply about the hypocrisy of "whataboutism!" on this forum?

"Whataboutism" is, as Randi was fond of saying, a canard.

It is entirely appropriate to compare claims of Christians being persecuted in Australia to actual persecution in countries such as Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I'm going to come out and say it. Christians are not being persecuted in Australia. Full stop. The Prime Minister and most of the members of the Government are Christian. Christian churches do not pay tax. Christian schools receive government funding. Christians constitute 52% of the Australian population.

Meanwhile Christians are being threatened, attacked, and killed in North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria. There are places where it is outright dangerous to practice Christianity. When someone can point to Australian Christians being subjected to systematic and continuing violence, then maybe I'll agree that Australian Christians are being persecuted.

Australian Christians are not being persecuted. Some of them are just being called out for being bigots. They need to suck it up.

 

[theprestige]

"Whataboutism" is, as Randi was fond of saying, a canard.

It is entirely appropriate to compare claims of Christians being persecuted in Australia to actual persecution in countries such as Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I'm going to come out and say it. Christians are not being persecuted in Australia. Full stop. The Prime Minister and most of the members of the Government are Christian. Christian churches do not pay tax. Christian schools receive government funding. Christians constitute 52% of the Australian population.

Meanwhile Christians are being threatened, attacked, and killed in North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria. There are places where it is outright dangerous to practice Christianity. When someone can point to Australian Christians being subjected to systematic and continuing violence, then maybe I'll agree that Australian Christians are being persecuted.

Australian Christians are not being persecuted. Some of them are just being called out for being bigots. They need to suck it up.

Whatever.

Are you actually going to answer my question? Or just quote it and fly off on a tangent?

 

[arthwollipot]

Whatever.

Are you actually going to answer my question? Or just quote it and fly off on a tangent?

I did.

"Whataboutism" is, as Randi was fond of saying, a canard.

It is entirely appropriate to compare claims of Christians being persecuted in Australia to actual persecution in countries such as Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[theprestige]

I did.

No.

I asked you if you would accept that my point is about whataboutism.

I didnt ask you for an argument against it.

We still haven't resolved your earlier misunderstanding about my point. Please slow down, back up a couple steps, and acknowledge that your initial response to my first post was wildly off base.

And then please just answer my question.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, I accept that your point is about whataboutism.

 

[Chanakya]

I eagerly await Costello's condemnation here, for his blatant whataboutism.

Actually this same thought occured to me. This is not to make any kind of comment on the (non-) persecution of Christians in Australia, but simply to reflect that Christians having a harsher time of it elsewhere is a probably a separate issue.

And -- apologies for the digress! -- this got me thinking about a thread I've just now commented on, about skepticism-for-the-heck-of-it. Mental muscle-flexing, as it were -- simply practicing our skepticism. We all do it, now and then, not just one single poster who always gets called out on it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually this same thought occured to me. This is not to make any kind of comment on the (non-) persecution of Christians in Australia, but simply to reflect that Christians having a harsher time of it elsewhere is a probably a separate issue.

While I don't disagree on the latter part, I feel that it is important to make Australian Christians aware that what they're experiencing here, and the circumstances that prompted the Ruddock review and the upcoming Religious Freedom bill, does not constitute persecution.

Gay people being allowed to get married does not persecute Christians. Israel Folau being disciplined for breaching an agreed Code of Conduct does not persecute Christians.

Assaulting and killing Christians for being Christians persecutes Christians. That happens elsewhere; it does not happen here.

 

[Chanakya]

Agreed, to all of that. Christians aren't being persecuted in Australia, nor for that matter in the US.

Curtailment of the freedom to move one's fist into another man's nose cannot, in any shape of form, be thought of as persecution.

 

[smartcooky]

Conservatives agitate for religious freedom law but Coalition voters not on board – Essential poll

People are saying that employers should not be able to say what their employees say outside of work, but somehow that does not apply to people employed by the Public Service.

The Australian Public Service Commission's social media guidelines make it clear that criticising the government, a department, a minister, or the Prime Minister on social media will almost always be considered a breach of the Public Service Code of Conduct, and could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

Note: The above is intended as a statement of fact, and should not be interpreted as a criticism of any policy or policies of the Australian Public Service, any Australian Government department, or of any Minister or Ministers, including the Prime Minister.

Being an employer myself, I have a few things to say about this...

I argue that, as a business owner, I am entitled to

a. set a policy for my business that is inclusive of protected minorities, and
b. set standards of behavioural expectations for employees which includes them not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities.

These policies and standards apply at all times, and are part of the employment contract. If you don't agree to them, then you don't get offered a job working for me.

These are not oppressive or overly burdensome conditions. All that is needed is for you to be a person of good character. From my perspective, being a bigoted homophobe like Israel Folau (whatever your stated reasons for you holding your beliefs, and however you dress them up) rules you out as a person of good character.

Now I keep hearing the spurious argument that Israel Folau was entitled to do what he likes in his own time, and that Rugby Australia wasn't or shouldn't be allowed to control what he did in public. That might apply to an ordinary employee, but Israel Folau was no ordinary employee. He was a walking advertisement for the sport of Rugby Union in Australia, an ambassador for that sport and a role model for young players. He had a responsibility to his employer, Rugby Australia for what he did in public. He was even the face of Gay Rugby in an advertising campaign a few years back, for which he was paid very handsomely.

http://www.kiis1011.com.au/news/israel-folau-was-the-pin-up-boy-for-a-gay-event

All professional sportsmen, especially the high profile ones, represent their sport at all times, so they are in effect "at work" 24/7/365. That is part of the price you pay for having a million dollar a year contract to kick and throw around a ball. Now, if you don't like those conditions, you need to go find another profession.

 

[psionl0]

Being an employer myself, I have a few things to say about this...

I argue that, as a business owner, I am entitled to

a. set a policy for my business that is inclusive of protected minorities, and
b. set standards of behavioural expectations for employees which includes them not making disparaging remarks towards protected minorities.

These policies and standards apply at all times, and are part of the employment contract. If you don't agree to them, then you don't get offered a job working for me.
. . . . .

It is views like this that have conservatives agitating for religious protection laws.

As an employer, you have an absolute right to demand that your staff refrain from making public statements that might reflect on your business.

You have no right to censor what your staff might say as private citizens (even in a public forum) if your business is not identified.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is views like this that have conservatives agitating for religious protection laws.

As an employer, you have an absolute right to demand that your staff refrain from making public statements that might reflect on your business.

You have no right to censor what your staff might say as private citizens (even in a public forum) if your business is not identified.

What if you discover your employee is a white supremacist, an advocate of pederasty, an anti-Semite, a Swiss, or some other unwelcome thing? Even if the public doesn't know the KKK Nazi works for you, you now know your worker is sitting there chortling at the prospect of a new Holocaust. Do you still have to employ them now you know they're eyeing your twelve-year old and wishing your rabbi were gassed? Do you have to wait until they hate crime a customer and get your business trashed in the news before you can fire them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Australian Christians are not being persecuted. Some of them are just being called out for being bigots. They need to suck it up.

Exactly that is the worst kind of persecution to christians, our religious right built a whole movement because they got upset at having to admit blacks to their schools after all. Though they rewrote history to suddenly have started caring about abortion years after Roe V Wade.

Welcome to the club.