Secular morality versus religious morality

Seeking Privilege

However, religious groups in Australia have ignored the UN documents to which Australia is a party, as well as the Ruddock Committee's finding that there is no substantial restriction of religion in Australia.³ They demand government rise to their expectations, using the mantra 'religious freedom' to claim special privileges for their beliefs and practices.

Although Australia is a signatory to the UN documents, there are few cases of a secular citizen succeeding in opposing religious privilege awarded by government despite the alleged equal rights to practise both religious and non-religious beliefs.

This is not surprising, as the principle of separation of religious values and secular government values is hard to untangle in constitutional monarchies like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. This entanglement is entrenched through the 'framing' of the idea of freedom of 'thought conscience and religion' by naming it 'freedom of religion or belief', giving support to the idea that it prioritises religion.

Conclusion

Laws should not be made according to what some call 'sin'

Our freedoms should be used responsibly and should be legitimately restricted only in the public interest. In statements of rights, the 'public interest' is expressed in general terms, e.g., public order, safety, health, or morals (public morals being informed by UN-created human rights). 'Sin' is a personal matter, and, in the interest of ensuring the right to personal 'thought, conscience or belief', society should be run according to the moral welfare of the people in general, notwithstanding individual beliefs. The UDHR, the foundational document in formulating what was to set the standards for a 'sound morality' for both individuals and society in general, thus established the interests of the individual, as well as the 'public interest', as noted, with parameters that would establish an internationally recognised model of democracy for all peoples, regardless of their ethnicity, or worldview. Other Conventions set out further rights pertaining to children, politics, race. This means that arguments for policy or law should be genuinely based on the public good, as established by principles of social welfare and human rights. Individuals have the right to make their own way to the afterlife, without the state dictating behaviour according to whether some believe it is 'sinful' or 'immoral' according to their personal beliefs.

The UDHR and related UN documents need to be recovered in this debate to set these questions of so-called 'religious freedom' in their proper, broader context.