The loveless marriage: 'religious' and 'freedom'

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.