The loveless marriage: 'religious' and 'freedom'

On Monday 30 November, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, issued a media release outlining the initiatives resulting from the inaugural Religious Freedom Roundtable held on 5 November 2015.

As an attendee representing the Rationalist Society of Australia, I was heartened by the constructive and secular attitudes of many of the 36 faith and non-faith groups who were there. Any misgivings about the value of such a discussion, or fears it was driven by a particular agenda, were quickly assuaged by a robust and freewheeling debate.

But there was still a common misunderstanding that religious freedom applies mostly to believers in god, and that the beliefs of those who intersect with them are not quite as important. Believers have consciences. Did non-believers miss out? It's hard to break out of the habit of regarding "conscience" as something belonging to believers only. But that's only an echo of the past. People have rights. Abstract ideas don't have rights, nor do they confer them.

Moving forward, how we choose to understand the term religious freedom is key. In public discourse it's often the vehicle delivering the religious conscience to the public square. Especially in the US where, for example, the Manhattan Declaration used it to legitimize civil disobedience in opposing same-sex marriage, and pro-life causes. But this is not what religious freedom means.

The unhappy marriage of the words "Religious" and "Freedom" is one of convenience.

And there's no doubt who wears the pants in this relationship. "Freedom" is a grand and illustrious word, the torchbearer of human rights, and the aspiration upon which nations have been built. "Religious" adds little to its lustre, but rather, basks in the radiance of its virtuous benefactor, invoking a dissonance reminding us of times when it was more often associated with words like "persecution", "blasphemy", "heresy", and "war".

Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of American freedoms, observed that "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".

It's better to think of religious freedom as freedom of belief. That way, it's less likely to be used as a Trojan horse to favour religion.

Religious Freedom is derived from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which safeguards the right of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". Freedom of thought is in fact the true progenitor of freedom of religion – which tells us that, amongst the maelstrom of beliefs, religious beliefs have no special currency. And that's why Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly protects faith and non-faith based beliefs equally.

One would have thought that this settles the matter. Article 18 also says that freedom of religion or belief has limits prescribed by law or to protect safety, order, and the rights and freedoms of others.

So why then do we still hear "religious freedom" invoked a by faith groups when they are in conflict with the law, or with the rights of others? I was curious to hear what acrobatics might be employed to justify this rendering of religious freedom.

At the Roundtable some faith groups argued for the "religious freedom" to act in a way consistent with their "purpose". Understand "purpose", in this context, to refer to an organisation's mission, vision and values.

This would be fine if the "purpose" related solely to the services provided. But the day to day services provided by Christian groups, for example, are obliquely related to a much larger mission to promote the Christian faith.

Let's consider this argument in relation to education. Scripture Union Queensland's mission is making "God's Good News known to children, young people and families, to encourage them to become followers of God through regular Bible reading and prayer and also to link up with their local church." Generate Ministries describes their mission as transforming the lives of young people, and using SRE to "empower young people by teaching God's word." The "purpose" of finding more followers for God is difficult to square with the common good, particularly so in our society where a vanishing minority of Australians attend church (8%) or observe religious doctrine (15% males, 22% females). The "purpose" of faith groups doesn't necessarily coincide with the public good.

Add to this the expectation of taxpayers in a democracy that tax dollars should go to projects in the public interest. As "public interest" suggests, the demographics of the public have a direct bearing on its interests, and we should contrast the opposing trajectories of policies seeking to advance faith, with the rapidly declining numbers of the faithful.

Controversies over the teaching materials and methods used in the Special Religious Instruction (SRI) program in Victoria are emblematic of the widening gulf. Once the Victorian government made enrolments optional, the programme became unsustainable due to public disinterest. When the Victorian government scrapped it from the curriculum (NB: it is still available outside of hours if parents wish), some saw it as an attack on religious freedom. I honestly don't see how. Parents are free to take their children to Sunday school or to any church, mosque, synagogue or other place of worship of their choosing.

This shouldn't mean that religion has no place at all in schools. But consider how instructing them in one form of Christianity, differs from educating them in comparative religious education. Educating children about the world's religions in a respectful, balanced and neutral way acknowledges our cultural diversity, and promotes social cohesion by encouraging the critical thinking necessary to avoid the pitfalls of radicalisation.

The Roundtable didn't discuss same-sex marriage in great detail. But the rainbow coloured elephant in the room was addressed by an initiative to hold future discussions on matters of public interest. The most prominent of these is same-sex marriage.

And in the gay marriage debate religious freedom has become the bulwark used to fend off change. Same sex marriage is a threat, attack and calculated assault on the freedom of the religious person. Consider how absurd this is. One person believes in same sex marriage. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to marry discriminated against.

It's difficult to see how policies favouring one set of beliefs will survive in the long term. The loveless marriage of the words "religious" and "freedom" seems destined to end in the union of "belief" and "freedom". Hopefully they'll stay together for a long time.