From the Centre's current poll.

"Ethics poll: church employee religion
March 2010
Should church-owned institutions be allowed to refuse to employ people of different (or no) faith?"

The vote currently stands at: Yes: 37.8% (62 votes). Unsure: 3% (5 votes), No: 59.1% (97 votes).

What think ye all?

Been thinking a lot about health issues lately what with the US vote and the Patel trial starting here in Brisbane so a hypothetical situation came to mind when I read this post. Suppose a religious group that provides healthcare (not naming any particular church; hypothetical situation only) wanted to hire a person for their hospital. Two people apply, one a highly qualified gay athiest, the other a member of the church but much less experienced in the required field.

So there you are lying on the operating table and the hospital chaplin is there to explain to you that you are in good hands because the doctor doing your emergency brain surgery is not a gay athiest but a member of the church. How do you feel?

Well as I'm not privy to the hire and fire policy of the hospital then I'd feel OK about it.
Even hypothetically I don't see a hospital chaplain speaking like that to a patient.

In the real world I think that a lot would depend upon the type of institution and whether religion had any bearing on the job. I know, personally, of Catholic schools that employ teachers of the Anglican persuasion, I would think that the religious beliefs of the person would come into it in the case of schools where Religion is part of the curriculum.
One could hardly expect a Satanist to teach in a Catholic school nor the school to hire one, nor could one expect a Catholic School to hire a teacher who belonged to a religion that taught that the Pope is the representative of Satan.

I remember one Catholic Presbytery in Sydney that employed an Anglican as housekeeper, but the fact that she was a Nun may have had something to do with it.

The poll is faulty in that it doesn't have a broad enough scope.

I would vote yes, churches should have a right to limit employment to people of their faith, or some faith, or whatever.

Sorry I didn't make that as clear as I could have. What I was trying to say was that the hospital in the hypothetical case hired not the best qualified (because he was a gay athiest) but one less skilled because he had the right religious views.

So the question should perhaps have been how would you feel if you knew you weren't getting treatment from the best qualified person available? Ethically doesn't the church have an obligation to provide the best care possible even if that means they have to hire people they don't agree with?

Phil
I agree with you about the hospital staff, its about the treatment. I wouldn't mind a gay atheist doctor, his skills and bed side manner would be all that mattered.

Schools are different, because a few parents like myself still send their kids to a religious school to give them a moral code in life, however I was quite dissapointed on that front with the Catholic co-ed school I chose.

At my first parent evening when my first son started high school the home room teacher said,
"Now we'll say some prayers, and if you don't know them, don't worry, cos I don't know them either I'm an Anglican!" I was furious, and later stood up and said I was shocked he wasn't a Catholic.
Next morning he joked about it with the class and my sensitive son was horrified at what I had said.

On another occasion my youngest son told me how his religious instruction teacher had brought her
radio with her and they had all listened to the Melbourne Cup (horse race) during class.

My elder son revealed a boy was flaunting a Satanic bible around the school and made me promise not to say anything, however I rang the school and the teacher concerned said something like
"These things pop up from time to time"
If my experience is anything to go by religious fanatics are few and far between at Catholic schools these days

I'd agree in the case of hospitals where the religion of the person has nowt to do with the job, providing always that the person hired respected the religious feelings of the institution and of the patients.

To broaden the discussion a bit (or go slightly off topic) we would probably find that religious hospitals pay far more attention to hiring doctors than do Government controlled ones. From recent events it would appear that a glib tongue is better than medical credentials in gaining a job with some health departments in Australia.

Christine,

I'd have had a good laugh over the first incident because it appears to me, from the little that you've said, that it was said jokingly. The Anglican teacher would be familiar with most Catholic prayers especially if he was Anglo-Catholic or High Church. However making a joke of it in front of your son was inappropriate.

Melbourne Cup Day and the Race are sacred in Australia and no one ought to get upset if it is listened to in the, seemingly, most in appropriate places. Operations are often scheduled in hospitals so as not to interfere with listening/watching The Cup (Capital letters used out of due reverence).

Samuel

Seriously, if the teacher was joking, I slightly resent the joke. Why try to ingraciate yourself with people like that? I felt let down, as I was working purely to send them to a Catholic school.

I was just reminding my son about the Melbourne Cup incident and he said, "Mum, I think she'd pretty much given up on the class anyway, she was twenty two and good looking and with all the boys in the class she'd lost control because none of them believed in religion."

I guess teachers reflect the society they are drawn from, many people send their kids to these schools in the hope of better academic results and are not practising Catholics.

The Marist College that my youngest son attends is very much religion oriented, but there is provision for non-Catholics, certainly academic excellence enters into the equation but that and the overall ethos of the school is mainly the deciding factor, or so I have gleaned from talking to other parents. Catholic schools are often preferred by Muslims where there are no Muslim schools and sometimes even if a Muslim school is available, not because of religion, obviously, but because of the outlook of the school and of the teachers.

ChristineO: "So the question should perhaps have been how would you feel if you knew you weren't getting treatment from the best qualified person available? Ethically doesn't the church have an obligation to provide the best care possible even if that means they have to hire people they don't agree with?"

I don't need treatment from the best qualified person. I need treatment from a qualified person.

Of course, the position that you should hire the best qualified plays hob with the politically correct folks, doesn't it? Or, having to hire a union teacher or nurse when better non-union personnel are available. Or, how about a university hospital that doesn't want to hire anyone who doesn't "fit in" politically?

Of course, if you had a choice on which doctor you had it wouldn't be an issue.

What makes you think Christine doesn't have a choice as to which doctor she goes to? Why wouldn't she have a choice?

Couple of points:

1. Is the discussion slightly unreal? I’m not aware that religious hospitals are selecting, e.g., surgeons based on denomination rather than training, competence, experience and expertise. And Christine’s experience doesn’t suggest that Catholic schools, at any rate, are hiring only Catholic teachers. I’m aware of schools from other traditions and denominations which, equally, appoint teaching staff who are not of that particular tradition/denomination. Shouldn’t discussion about a law like this address the kinds of discrimination that do in fact arise in society, rather than unrealistic hypotheticals?

2. There’s obviously an area within which religious organisations must be free to discriminate. You can’t require, e.g., a Jewish congregation to disregard religious identification, practice, belief, etc when appointing a rabbi. They want a Jewish rabbi, and furthermore they want a rabbi who takes Judaism seriously, and practices it. Something similar goes for other religious bodies appointing ministers. The same, indeed, goes for non-religious bodies which exist to express a particular philosophy or belief – political parties, feminist organisations, etc, etc.

3. Obviously, appointing (say) a bishop is not the same as hiring someone to mow the grass. It’s more important that a Catholic bishop should be, well, Catholic, than that the gardener in a Catholic school should be. Where do we draw the line after which denomination or religious/philosophical belief is irrelevant to the job?

4. I’m inclined to think that, in the first instance, the drawing of the line should be left to the organisation concerned. They, after all, know what the job is and how it fits into their overall mission and vision. I may think that the job of a maths teacher, say, is to teach the children the nine times’ tables, and nothing more, and that his beliefs and philosophies on other subjects are irrelevant, but the people who create and maintain the position for which he is applying may have an entirely vision of what that position is and what it entails. If their vision is wider than mine, and entails the teaching staff in their schools participating in building an intentional Christian community, then it’s not unreasonable for them to take the view that religious belief is relevant, and to take that into account in hiring decisions.

5. We might, of course, decide that the government has no business funding a school which seeks to create an intentional Christian community, but that’s not the point. The issue here is not whether the school should get public funding – let’s assume, in fact, that it doesn’t - but whether it should be allowed to operate the employment policy which it thinks appropriate to its mission.

6. It seems to me that if we allow a religious organisation to specify that its priests and ministers should have a particular religious position, and if that organisation genuinely sees education (or medical care, or social services, or whatever) as an aspect of ministry, and seeks to employ people who are committed to that vision of ministry, we cross an important line if we refuse to allow them to do so.

If you have a choice, then you simply go to another doctor.

Sometimes in hospitals one does not seem to have much choice of doctors. Years ago when I was dependent on Medicare (or whatever the system was called) I was stricken with stones somewhere in the urinary tract, I don't recall just which part, but the pain was intense as the water works had ceased to function. I made it to Hornsby hospital at about 5:30 AM and was immediately made welcome, particulars were taken rapidly and I was asked would I like a doctor of my choice or the available hospital doctor?
I asked who the available doctor was and was told that they couldn't tell me that as they were not allowed to do so. So I asked the bloke in charge what he'd do in my place, he said that that would be telling me and all that he'd advise me was to hurry up. Feeling like death warmed up for the second time I said that I'd take the hospital's doctor. Said doctor turned out to be the top renal specialist and a Professor from Sydney Uni's teaching hospital. I was treated with chemicals and nothing more intrusive was done other than the Prof's students all having a go at feeling the disolving stones, something that in my opinion was the least that I could do for medical science. It was not until two days later that I felt any after effects when the medication wore off. I was black and blue from the inexpertly probing fingers

It’s not quite so simple, I think. Once you’ve been admitted to a particular hospital you’re pretty well limited to being treated by the doctors on staff there, or who have consultancies there. Sure, you can discharge yourself and go to another hospital, but this is a fairly drastic step – especially if you’re not feeling the best – and the fact that you have the theoretical right to do so doesn’t alter the fact that, in real life, it’s a pretty substantial barrier much of the time.

Besides, a large part of your hospital experience is not the medical treatment, but the nursing care, and I don’t know any hospital that gives patients their choice of nurses. And what if you like the surgeons at one hospital but the physicians at another, while a third hospital offers the best postoperative care?

No, I agree with Christine that a hospital has an ethical obligation to provide the best medical and nursing care that it can, and that we have a right to expect that. If a hospital doesn’t do that, I don’t think we can argue that there’s ”no problem”, so long as patients are free to seek treatment elsewhere.

Certainly one would not expect to dictate how a church hires its pastors as having the values of the church and preaching them are an intergral part of the job. The members of the church also meet the cost of the salary for their pastor from their own pockets.

Schools and hospitals are totally different, firstly a particular set of beliefs are not necessary to perform surgery or teach maths. Secondly the state is providing the funds for all or most of the costs of running these facilities. So how much right does that give the state to control the hiring policy of these organisations? Isn't there something in our constitution that prevents anyone seeking to work in public service being questioned about their religious beliefs? So if the state and the rest of us have to live by a set of rules why should the churches be exempt?

Most of this is hypothetical as I'm sure that most church groups take their role in society seriously and recognise that not hiring the best qualified people is not in their long term interest. But if anyone would like to explore how a different organisation approaches the issue you could use google to seek information on the church of scientology and two linked organisations (narconon and applied scholastics) When we give exemptions to discrimination law to a group of organisations we have no assurances that some of them will not abuse what they have been given.

If religious institutions were a normal business or another organisation, they would be treated like any other. What feature other than mythology sets them apart from anyone else? Because of obfuscation of the masses founded on fear they get to work outside the rule of law and trample on people's rights. If they were a normal business, they would be sitting in the defendants seat in court and shut down by the authorities.

"What feature other than mythology sets them apart from anyone else?"
Charitable works for one.
Should a Metrologist hire someone who doesn't believe in Mathematics?

ChristineO, in Australia Catholic schools hire the teacher based on their qualifications to teach a particular subject.
To do otherwise is discrimination and we have laws against that.
They have Catholic teachers to teach the Catholic religion though.

Everyone has the human right to freedom of religion and belief. But often religion and belief can be used as grounds for discrimination and as weapons of division and hate.
Australia as a secular country is based on section 116 of our Constitution that states parliament cannot discriminate against people because of their religion. It also says that religion must not be a prerequisite for office, nor can the state establish or promote any particular religion.

In my view if the school only wants to hire Catholic teachers and only teach Catholic children then they should not be eligible for any State Revenue. And that goes for any other religion too.
If they want to be a really private school then don't ask for any public money.