Anglican Archbishop against exemptions but wants “positive right” to religious freedom
Image: Archbishop Davies is unhappy with the Wangaratta diocese decision to bless same-sex married couples
Archbishop of the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney Glenn Davies defended a letter sent out by the Diocese which called for exemptions to discrimination law to remain in place.
Davies said that the letter was calling for the exemptions to be left alone until potential reforms are introduced to preserve the church’s “positive right” to religious freedoms,聽.
The letter, which was signed by the heads of Anglican educational institutions, drew anger from Anglicans and inspired a petition in response.
The .
The Church’s original letter claimed that there is “little evidence” that LGBTI students or staff are being discriminated against in schools within the diocese.
Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich , both over its defence of the exemptions and for the diocese’s anti-marriage equality campaigning during the postal survey last year.
Davies claimed that Anglican schools don’t discriminate against LGBTI students and staff and suggested he would support the removal of the exemptions “that they didn’t ask for” from the Sex Discrimination Act.
He said the letter was advocating for Anglican schools’ ability to “teach within their beliefs and ethos”, which he believes would be impinged on by the exemptions’ removal.
Davies said it would be a “misjudgment” to not provide for religious freedom in response to the exemptions’ removal, and made a comparison to a boarding house master entering a relationship with a married woman as “modelling adultery” to students and therefore providing grounds for his removal.
Meanwhile, Ballarat Anglicans , though this would not allow churches within the diocese to conduct same-sex weddings.
Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Dr Phillip Aspinall also took a stand against the Diocese of Sydney鈥檚 letter in his own letter.
鈥淲ithin the Anglican Church there is a wide spectrum of understanding about human sexuality and gender,鈥� Aspinall wrote.
鈥淲ithin a school community there may also be diversity of opinion. For some, this is a sensitive topic.
鈥淗owever, differences of opinion do not negate the necessity for school environments to enable all people to feel included, to be safe and to flourish.”
Davies donated $1 million to the No campaign during the marriage equality postal survey, and has previously described same-sex marriage as 鈥渦nholy matrimony鈥�.
In a recent speech, of “enemies of religious freedom”.
He said the leaks “exposed the hypocrisy of those who, during the same-sex marriage campaign, repeatedly told the Australian public that same-sex marriage would have absolutely no consequences for religious freedom.”
鈥淣ow they have revealed what has always been their agenda鈥搕o force religious schools to play by secular rules,” Davies said.
You want a reply? Let me give you one. I do so as one with University degrees in Religious Studies / Theology. I do not believe the Churches, or any religion, should be exempt from any law that every other person and every other organisation is required t adhere to and conform to. There should be No Exemptions; none at all. If they can’t accept that, let them get out of Australia. Andrew D’A. E. Bush.
Blame the Liberal Party. Or more correctly the reactionary right who couldn’t let marriage equality pass without a bitch session and an inquiry into winning more rights for churchy types.
How’s that working out for you Tony? Senator Abetz? P-Dutty? ScoMo was all onside until even he realised what a toxic issue this is, now he’s backing away, and he’s a religious fundamentalist! When you’re too extreme for the Hillsong types that’s how you know you’re losing most Australians. You’ve crashed ScoMo’s religious campaign before it even began by being dickheads. Go right ahead, you’re the best thing going for progressives by being so tactically dumb.
Meanwhile there are a bunch of Sydney Anglican school principals who have their arses on the line because the Liberals have promised meaningful religious freedom reform and they’ve been talked into signing a letter by the archbishop. So Liberal Party, why won’t you deliver? Why not release the Ruddock report which was promised months ago? Surely you’re not terrified by it?
As for the substance of the article, why has none of these Anglicans who want “positive religious freedoms” spelled out what freedoms they do or don’t want? Even the archbishop’s weird example of an ancillary employee (not a teacher) sinning would only survive legal challenge if the school equally refused students whose parents had been involved in similar extra-marital affairs, I’d have thought. They need to spell this shit out in all its legal technicality so we can point out how stupid it is in precise detail.