Why granting concessions to religious institutions to discriminate can't be justified.

A simple post regarding why religious institutions should not be immune from state law.

Today, Julia Gillard made concessions to Christain factions/institutions in Australia by potentially allowing religious institutions/employers (such as Catholic schools) to discriminate against certain employees who do not live up to a certain moral standard pertinent to their religious teachings - such as Gays or women who use IVF or have an abortion.

Firstly, I could probably write a whole essay as to why this is deplorable. However, seeing as this is just a blog I will justify my views using a simple graph.

Government: Should reman morally neutral in all areas.

Within the law, government also needs to balance: 

1. Freedom of religion (Const) 2. Equality (Principle - ICCPR etc)

HOWEVER: 

1. Equality does not impinge on freedom to practice religion 

2. Religion can only impinge on equality

Therefore, the government can only allow freedom of private morality to the extent it does not HARM another group in society. As it does, it can't be justified.

Easier said than done.

A news article released by the UN News Centre yesterday has reported that Ban Ki Moon, Secterary General of the UN has called for focus to reduce terrorism through a range of factors, including the following:

[1] Upholding civil rights

[2] Blanket prohibitation on political violence

[3] International and national dialogue between religious groups, the state and the international community

[4] Ending the financing of weaponry/organisation etc

[5] Terrorism does not prevent individuals in a state receiving humanitarium assistance
 and
[6] A comprehensive strategy - international/regional/domestic

Despite this, I believe more specific resolutions - however resolutions that are increasingly harder to achieve, would further disenfranchise these groups:

[1] Growth of wealth - not merely GDP but also in terms of economic rights. Such rights may need to be granted by subsidies etc rather than mere privitisation. Could be benefictial for the West waive certain debts or to re-structure aid spending so it depends on different approaches (more rights based)

[2] Non-intervention with the exception of humanitarium intervention. This is a polarising issue especially when it comes to states such as Syria. Its difficult to sponser rebel groups or government groups as its hard to be absolute what future consequences this may have. I've always been of the belief that other nations should predominately assist other states in terms of humanitarium aid and only minimally in terms of arms/etc.

[3] For all states to minimalise sectarian divisions without suppression (through secular governance) - easier said than done.

Introduction

Dear reader,

Here I have included some simple observations surrounding current social, political and legal issues. Most of these are merely my opinon. Despite the fact I am currently studying politics, I realise this does not give me a comprehensive knowledge of all the issues. However, I think of myself as a rational and secular individual who will often try to look at media stories objectively.