email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
State school students denied free transport (The West, 21 April 10). Collie Senior High School (CSHS) has no classes in physics, chemistry, specialist maths. Collie students who want to study physics, chemistry of specialist maths, are catching the bus to Manea Senior College (MSC) in Bunbury.
The Public Transport Authority (PTA) provides bus transport -- free -- to school students. Free to CSHS students. Free to private school students. But not free to the few Collie students who want to learn physics, chemistry or specialist maths.
According to The West, "Students could bypass the closest school for 'cultural or religious reasons' " -- and still get free transport, to and from school.
"PTA spokesman David Hynes said its brief was to provide transport to the nearest appropriate school." (My emphasis added.) A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate religious environment -- and that student will get free transport. A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate cultural environment -- and that student will get free transport. A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate education -- and stuff you, kiddo, you can pay your own way!
Whose policy is this?
PTA have a "brief". From the Education Department? From some faceless bureaucrat elsewhere in the public service? From some mindless, politically correct politician? PTA have a brief -- from somewhere -- which tells them to ignore education.
When you go to school, you can choose a school by your claimed religious preference. You can choose a school based on your claimed cultural preference. But don't you dare choose a school just because you want access to a more challenging education! Religious prejudice? Fine. Cultural bias? No worries. Advanced educational options? Get lost.
What next? Less money for public libraries because they offer non-religious and non-cultural books? Didn't we once claim to be, "the clever country"?
Meanwhile... back in gay la la land...
In the same edition of The West, Brian Greig pushes his own brand of anti-religious bigotry.Greig is a strong supporter of same-sex partnerships. He is fighting for same-sex marriages. I have no problem with that: if a same-sex couple want to call themselves a couple then they may as well be subject to the same rights and obligations as any other self-nominated "couple".
What Greig wants to do, is to force his own standards onto groups which see same-sex unions as "a sin".
He asks a series of questions, such as, "Should the Salvation Army be allowed to refuse service to a gay man looking for a job through Employment Plus?" Would they? Is Greig just shooting out random accusations? Let's pick another of Greig's questions:
"Should a religious school have the right to expel a gay student?"
This "religious school" presumably supports and teaches some brand of religion. That religion may consider that "a gay student" is a sinner. I would hope that the religion is past the stage of persecuting that student. But in order to protect their own moral standards followers of that religion must be entitled to separate their own children from the "sinners". They provide a religious environment, they teach their own religion, they teach that homosexuality is a sin. Why should they be forced to accept sinners at their school?
Similarly, a Catholic hospital may refuse to offer abortions. Why should a Catholic doctor go to Hell because a non-Catholic wants an abortion?
This is the real problem:
Students (or their families) may choose a school for religious or cultural reasons. Patients may choose a hospital, unemployed may choose an employment agency, for the same reasons. Schools, hospitals, employment agencies must -- if their religion or culture demands it -- must be allowed to select their students, their patients, their clients. This is not government oppression, it is not bigotry -- it is freedom of choice.Greig wants to remove freedom of choice from those offering services. At the same time, he demands freedom of choice for his selected minority.
Sorry, mate, but I'm not going to send a Catholic priest to his possible Hell, just so that you can get more "equality" than anyone else.
The answer is more complex -- but obvious
Same-sex couples want to be married? Okay, create pressure to change the law.Same-sex couples want to be married in a church / mosque / temple / etc where same-sex marriages are considered to be sinful? Too bad. Forget it. Or, convince the religion that same-sex marriages are not a sin. Do not demand that the law must change religious beliefs.
Yes, a religion is subject to the laws of the country. That does not mean that we must force a pointless change on followers of that religion. Marriage -- the legal joining of two people -- no worries. Marriage as the religious blessing of the union of two people -- not if the religion disagrees. If you don't agree with the religion, either change it by agreement from within -- or leave.
Back to the correct answer: If the Salvation Army does, in fact, refuse service to a gay man -- make sure that the government also funds employment agencies who are happy to help. If a Catholic hospital refuses to perform an abortion -- fund non-Catholic hospitals which will. If a school will not accept a gay student -- make sure that there are enough non-judgmental schools to cater for gay students.
And Greig: stop trying to force your anti-religious bigotry onto people who may actually believe that homosexuality is a punishable sin. Put your efforts into ensuring that the punishment is reserved only for the possibly-imaginary afterlife.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment