Comments on: Discrimination and the Media

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:27:24 +0000

Thanks guys

And here is a further update on this story. This time my letter did make it in: www.theage.com.au/opinion/letters/caught-in-a-contradiction-20090801-e57d.html?page=-1

This is what made it in:

Caught in a contradiction
Letters
August 2, 2009
ROB Hulls informs us that discrimination is a terrible evil that must be eradicated (‘‘We must tackle discrimination in all its forms’’, 26/7). And The Sunday Age is quite happy to run with this and similar opinion pieces. In both cases, we have clear examples of, well, discrimination.
If Hulls was really serious about ending all discrimination, he would allow a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal to become the ALP’s state president. And if The Sunday Age was really serious about ending discrimination, it would stop censoring out opinion pieces that take an opposing stance on this and other important social issues. But somehow I don’t expect either of these activities to take place any time soon. Thus I have to ask: if it is fully acceptable for politicians and newspapers to discriminate as a matter of course, then why is it not acceptable for religious groups to be allowed to do the same?
BILL MUEHLENBERG, Heathmont

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Peter S

Peter S — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:51:07 +0000

They discriminated against me too Bill – they did not print my letter either.
There were two on our side though so we may have helped them get in print.
Peter Stokes

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:41:03 +0000

Thanks guys

Here is an update on this story. In today’s Sunday Age the lead editorial is on – you guessed it – the evils of discrimination. And who is it by? You guessed it: arch social engineer Attorney General Rob Hulls. It all sounds like discrimination to me.

And did my letter to the paper get in this week? You guessed it. No dice. More discrimination.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Pam

Pam — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:08:54 +0000

Great article Bill.

We all discriminate, in that we choose the most able sportspeople for our team and hopefully the best qualified person for the job. Discrimination is not intrinsically bad and only becomes problematic when we exclude those who would otherwise be appropriate for a particular job, but we use other criteria to disqualify them e.g. their religion, or political persuasion.

I can see problems if religious schools are not allowed to discriminate when choosing staff. For instance, if a Jewish school was forced to hire an observant Muslim whose religion taught that Jews were the enemy of Allah.

Pam Renton

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:13:40 +0000

Thanks Michael

I agree. I don’t buy the paper. I just read its online version.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Michael Palma

Michael Palma — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:09:48 +0000

Dear Bill,
I do not understand why so many Christians give the “Age” any credibility by buying, reading and quoting from it. As long as that publication maintains its blatantly anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-marriage, pro-abortion bias then in my opinion the “Age” is not worthy to use to wrap my rubbish in. It’s time that true Christians boycotted the “Age” and ignored it completely. Hopefully it would then go out of business which would be a good result for the community. If we buy the “Age” and publications like it we are helping to promote the message of those who wish to increase discrimation against Christians.

Kind regards,
Michael Palma
Hampton Park, Victoria

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:10:37 +0000

Thanks Peter

Yes I have written up the VCAT case here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/07/23/more-pro-homosexual-discrimination/

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Peter S

Peter S — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:17:12 +0000

Ironically, today we read in the Herald Sun that VCAT has agreed to discrimination against men by lesbians!! One rule for some, another for others is always going to prove how silly anti-discrimination law really is.
What the Age Editorial appeared to be asking in their heading was “what are human rights?”, which is a very good question that nobody wants to answer. But then they immediately support the denying of choice for small businesses and schools which is, in itself, a denial of two of the most basic human rights, the right of association and the right to chose. To deny people choice will inevitably also deny the right to free speech and the right to hold certain religious views.
What they are saying is that certain peoples ‘rights’ are greater than another person’s right to not accept a certain religion or lifestyle.
So WHO decides which is the greater ‘right’?
The fact is, the whole notion of anti-discrimination against anything that is a choice is a farce because it will ALWAYS infringe on someone else’s choice or right to choose.
The only basis for any anti-discrimination are therefore ethnic origin and skin colour.
Perhaps, sometimes but not in all circumstances, sex (male/female, not sexual orientation) and disability discrimination are wrong – because these too are not matters of choice. Nevertheless they are matters that need to be considered in many situation and wise discernment (discrimination is legitimate and even required).
Peter Stokes

By: Louise Le Mottee

Louise Le Mottee — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:02:26 +0000

Now I have not made a large number of posts, and so I’d be interested in others’ experience, but looking more closely at what comments they do allow, the rule seems to be that comments must be consistent with the secular world-view to be posted.

My own experience suggests that this may well be the case.

Secularists are shocking hypocrites actually. I’m thoroughly sick of them.

Louise Le Mottee

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:23:30 +0000

Thanks Paul

And thanks for the tip about the article. I had not seen that one.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch