Submission to the Religious Freedom Review The Expert ...

Submission to the Religious Freedom Review The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on religious freedom in Australia.

1. As a Christian minister in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, I am grateful that the Marriage Act as amended last December does not compel me to conduct weddings that contradict my conscientiously held views on the nature of marriage. Of course, that has always been the case. For example, I have never been required to conduct the remarriage of a divorced person under every circumstance. However, I am glad that this right has been recognised and protected.

2. Religious freedom is much more than the right to hold certain religious views or the freedom of worship. The free exercise of the Christian Faith involves sharing that faith with others both privately and publically. As a Christian I do not seek the right to coerce others into accepting or adopting Christian morality (although history has many shameful examples of Christian coercion). Christians seek to persuade others to their point of view with the force of argument rather than the argument of force. We use words, not weapons. Freedom to express a religious viewpoint ? or any viewpoint for that matter ? in the marketplace of ideas is essential to a free society.

3. Freedom of religion as a subset of freedom of expression should include the right not to be compelled to promote a view that goes against one's own conscientiously held opinion. Some advertising firms during the Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite period publically stated that they would not accept any business promoting the No Case. That is a reasonable refusal. Similarly, Christian publishers (or the proverbial baker!) should have the right not to produce material promoting views and values that contradict their convinced personal position. That doesn't mean they would refuse business on the basis of another person's views (for example on the definition of marriage or their sexuality), but only decline to use their creative skills to promote a view or participate in an activity with which they disagree. As well, the freedom not to promote a view that goes against one's conscience should extend to individuals, not just religious organisations.

4. Religious organisations that exist to promote the beliefs and morals of their particular faith, should have the freedom to select staff whose beliefs and behaviour accord with that faith. A political party would reasonably reject as a member someone who did not subscribe to that party's policies. That may be discrimination, but to disallow that kind of discrimination would potentially water down what makes the party distinctive, effectively destroying it. So it would be a reasonable expression of religious freedom to reject an application for a staff position in, say, a religious school or social agency or publisher if the applicant does not conform to the tenets of that organisation.

5. Freedom of speech inevitably carries with it the risk of causing offence. Deliberately setting out to cause offence is wrong. However, it is impossible to eliminate the risk that someone might take offence when they hear a view that contradicts their own convictions. That risk does not justify unduly restricting freedom of expression. To disagree is not of itself to disrespect. I might find it offensive that someone expresses the view that belief in God is stupid, but that is a small price to pay to give every Australian the freedom to express a contrary ? even offensive ? point of view.

Michael Robinson

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download