Victoria, religious freedom and those that don't get it

Lest you think the descriptions of those dark times in Europe are exagerated take a look around at the theocracies that exist today in the modern world, and the states that give sway to belligerent faiths that prosecute heretics, apostates and blasphemers with punishment or death.

Those opposing freedom of religion and conscience, preferring all to bow down to their one religion as "the truth", do not rest. Where the law of the land does not allow them to impose obedience they try to get around rights by insisting on rights they do not have.

First they claim the right not to be criticised as being a right to religious freedom. There is no such right. Blasphemy laws suppress the right to free speech. If a faith cannot stand up to criticism it is not a strong faith. Criticism is not physical force, and is not suppression. Knowledge is aided by criticism and the right to free speech.

Secondly they claim the right to be appart and not to have to encounter other faiths and so on. If they can find a place to do that, and stick their fingers in their ears going la la la, fine. That does not give them the right to include others in their enclave unwillingly, such as children who have a right to enjoy a proper education and exposure to the society they live in.

Thirdly they claim a right to withold employment or service from those that do not pass religious orthodoxy tests, or moral tests. This is a direct contravention of article 18 of the charter of human rights. The people seeking employment with or services from such groups are covered by that right and their lack of conformity with the religious groups doctrines is not imposing anything on the religious group, thus preserving that groups article 18 rights as well.

We can perhaps forgive Rob Ward, director of the Australian Christian Lobby, for thinking that oppressing employees religious freedom is an act of religious freedom. He is, after all, representing a group that want no truck with religious freedom, they want conformity with their beliefs.

What can we say though about Attorney-General Robert Clark? This man and the government of which he is a part, is meant to be acting on behalf of the people of Victoria, a secular state with a vast mixture of beliefs and concerns. He should be upholding religious freedom and the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet he does not seem to know what religious freedom is, taking the side of the lobbyists for conformity.

When the people of Victoria voted the Baillieu government in there were probably many reasons, most economic or a simple dislike for the encumbents. I don't believe they gave the Baillieu government a mandate for this change. I would say to the people of Victoria that you need to make the government aware that you don't agree with their stand.