Religious Freedom

The debate over a national charter of rights in Australia often involves the opponents declaring that such a charter would endanger the religious freedom that all Australians enjoy. The arguments all sound very convincing - secular views will be imposed upon those of us who wish to practice religion, thereby narrowing the scope of rights we are entitled to.

There is a fair bit of spin in this argument. "Freedom" can an emotive word, in the sense that it often generates positive feelings; but when these people talk about "religious freedom" they are not talking about anything positive. This latter definition represents the freedom to oppress minorities, discriminate based on gender and sexuality, and to deny essential services to those in need on the basis of superior morality.

The real implication of the opposing argument is that such oppression and discrimination currently exists within religious and religious-affiliated institutions. A bill of rights should not impose restrictions on ideas and on faith, but it should impose restrictions when the rights of citizens are threatened by others. Yes, it will interfere with the machinations of the churches or mosques or temples, but the problem lies in the religion, not a bill or charter of rights.

My biggest concern with this debate is that the religious majority of Australia will be swayed by the misleading statements brought forth by the religious leaders. Those who believe have a propensity to ignore the truth at the best of times.

I certainly hope that a national bill of rights be developed, because despite our claim to have strong social values of equality and fairness, there is currently no framework that reinforces these values in the eyes of the law.

Human Rights Act campaign website
News link: Bill of rights desirable but not urgent: voters
News link: Rights charter runs into religious opposition