About a week ago Andrew Thorburn was appointed as CEO of Essendon Football Club. Soon after, however, he came under public criticism for his association with a church named City on a Hill, which holds a traditional Christian perspective on sexuality. The Essendon board gave Andrew a choice between resigning his position on the board of his church or resigning his position as CEO of Essendon. Asked to publicly choose between his faith and football club, he did as many people of faith would do and chose his faith. 

In Andrew’s words, the Essendon Football Club board "made it clear that my Christian faith and my association with a Church are unacceptable in our culture if you wish to hold a leadership position in society." (source) 

It didn’t matter that Andrew wasn’t publicly promoting his views on sexuality, the association with a conservative church was enough. 

This may be a disturbing watershed moment in Australian history. It will have a chilling effect upon Australian society as organisations with social influence will now consider carefully before appointing Christians to important roles. It seems likely that people of faith with orthodox views on sexuality (those in line with historical religious teaching) may now find themselves with a glass ceiling above their heads for certain roles. 

Are we really now in a place where a quasi religious test of sexual orthodoxy is being placed upon secular positions like this? 

Is the kind of society we want to live in? How are we all going to live together for the next 100 years?

The reality is that many people living in Australia have deeply incompatible views on many issues. The LGBTI+ movement has deeply held views about human sexuality. Many other Australians have views in deep opposition to this. For many, this is a religious issue.* 

Neither side is going to compromise their beliefs and we shouldn’t ask them to. 

Neither side is disappearing either. LGBTI+ people are part of the fabric of Australia, but so are people with conservative views on sexuality.

Given this seemingly intractable situation, how are we going to live peacefully together? 

It isn’t through hating each other when we disagree. It isn’t through attacking each other’s livelihood. It also isn’t through trying to coerce others to believe the same as us. It isn’t through zero sum games, it isn’t through excluding people from polite society, and it also isn’t through pretending that these issues don’t exist. 

We need a better way forward and we at the Common Good Party see a better path.

We need a true tolerance that extends beyond those who think and behave the same as us.

We need a deep tolerance for those who look differently, think differently, believe differently, and behave differently. 

We need a real tolerance that accepts and affirms real diversity, where people of different convictions, worldviews, religion, sexuality, and whatever else can feel welcome and peacefully coexist. 

We also need our politicians and political participants to validate the importance of all individuals and groups in our society, rather than stoking outrage and fanning the flames of hatred. People of different religions and sexual orientations should feel welcome in sport and society. 

We understand that this issue is complicated. Institutions often exist with ideological purposes and it is essential that these institutions be able to maintain their character. Freedom of association is one of the bedrocks of a free society. 

We do, however, wonder whether promoting sexual conformity is really a part of Essendon Football Club’s inherent ideological purposes, or whether it is something being pressed upon them. 

We'll leave the final words to those in Victoria. There are two very different versions of tolerance being argued.

“Those views are absolutely appalling, I don’t support those views, that kind of intolerance, that kind of hatred, bigotry. It is just wrong… To dress that up as anything other than bigotry is just obviously false.” - Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria. 

“If you want a diverse society it also means there are going to be people with different views. The question for harmony is whether we can coexist and hear each other and respect each other’s views. It’s that point around I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.” - Andrew Thorburn. 

(source)

 *Several commentators insist that views on sexuality aren’t a religious issue because not all religious people have a conservative view on sexuality. This is like saying that infant baptism isn’t a religious issue for Baptist Christians because Anglican Christians are okay with baptising infants. While some religious people do hold modern views of sexuality, many conservative religious people would view this as a significant betrayal of their religion and God. These belief systems may share a name, they are very different in their worldview and are in some ways different religions.