Alan seems to be somewhat worried about the Human Rights Commission drafting a national statement on religious diversity. While I share some of his concerns, I think that he is a little off the mark with others.
What is the alternative here? Should the state be giving preference to one religion over another? I don't really think so. I would definitely oppose any religion other than Christianity being given preference in law, so why should Christianity be treated specially? I share Alan's concern that this could be used to exclude prayers from various ceremonies where they have been used for years (such as Anzac services for examples), but I think the alternative is worse.
This one concerns me a little, but for a different reason. I don't think that this should be excluded so that an employer can simply create a "Christian" business. Instead, it should be removed so that an employer can hire whoever they want without the state imposing limits on it. Employers should have the right to hire whoever they want - it is their money after all. This is needed in some cases because of the work hours required - if someone refuses to work on a particular day due to religious requirements, then an employer shouldn't have to hire them if that is exactly what the job requires.
As an employer myself, I really don't care what religion someone is as long as they can do the job well. But I can't see this becoming as free as I would like, and I know many would react very badly if refused a job only because of their religion.
This policy has applied to state schools for quite some time. Any religious instruction is optional (for the students) at state schools, and I cannot see this statement ever applying to integrated or private schools. Alan's comments are way off the mark here. Those wanted to create an education system "wholly integrated with life" currently can only do so through integrated or private schools anyway, not throug the state system. And that is how it should be (and would continue to be even if this statement were adopted).
Those with "incredible knowledge and understanding in matters of religion" can get involved - just not in the state system. I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding education about (for example) hinduism and buddhism, so I don't see why others should fund Christian teaching either.
I disagree completely here. Freedom of religion means exactly that - freedom. As soon as you introduce criteria for bad religion we run into a enormous number of difficulties, and I'm sure you'll find that it could be enforced for political reasons. It is one step towards a police state.
As dispicable as Satanism, the occult, and witchcraft are, freedom of religion means that people are free to practice them. However, if practicing those religions involves violation of other laws, then of course those laws should be enforced. But you do not need to remove freedom of religion for this - other existing laws already cover it.
Yes and no. There should be freedom of speech, and this freedom must entail the ability to criticise other religions. Limitations on freedom of speech must have an extremely good cause. The US Supreme Court has historically set the bar fairly high with the example of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
I think that the disciplinary action for things such as the Mohammed cartoons and the South Park episode should be limited to public opinion. The public is perfectly entitled to let broadcasters know that they found something dispicable and will boycott them because of that. But this does not in any way remove the right of those broadcasters to publish them. Freedom of expression and the press is vital to an open democracy, and every limitation on them must have very good cause. I definitely would not support limitations on satire of religions at all.
This statement is rather ambiguous, so I'm not entirely sure of my view on it. If public services include only those provided by (or funded by) the state, then they shouldn't discriminate based on different religions. That is of course different to recognising and accommodating different beliefs.
Overall, there are only a few parts of the statement that concern me a little. Even though I am a Christian myself, I don't see why our law should discriminate in favour of Christianity. Freedom of religion is critical to a democracy, and this must be the foundation of any such statement on religion diversity.
Comments
Do you think it is important to honour our creator and ask for his blessing when it comes to the way we manage our lives? If so, would it not be helpful for the government of our country, which manages something like $40 Billion taxpayer dollars per year, to do the same with accurate theological understanding?
As for the matter of schooling, the draft statement does not clarify the matter the way that you have, which hopefully will happen as a result of the consultation.
“I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding education about (for example) Hinduism and Buddhism, so I don't see why others should fund Christian teaching either.”
I would have no problems with there being a component of education on Hinduism in schools, but I would be concerned if it had to be done in a way that did not allow critical evaluation of that religion. I believe our ignorance of religion and theology in education creates an unnecessary and damaging effect on the basic building blocks that children use as a foundation for understanding life and their role in it. Given the billions of taxpayer dollars we contribute to education each year, surely we should also have a say in the way that education is delivered, including its religious and theological parameters.