Greater Protection of Religion? Not If All Religions Are To Be Protected
Consistent Rejection of Enhanced Protection
Australians have previously rejected proposals to constitutionally entrench freedom of religion. This has occurred in the context of referenda proposals to amend the constitution, proposals to protect religious freedom in a statutory ‘bill of rights’ and prior to the legalisation of same sex marriage, in general discussions of proposals to to entrench or legislate greater protection of religious freedom.
Opposition to greater legal and constitutional protection of freedom of religion was notably at least in part led by leaders of Australia’s established religions.
Why have Australians opposed a legally enforceable guarantee of freedom of religion?
I offer the following explanation of this opposition, which on the surface appears to be contrary to its own interests. Put simply, leaders of Australia’s main Christian churches see little need for such legal protection. Their religious beliefs, expression of their beliefs and the exercise of their religious beliefs are not in need of legal protection. Their religious beliefs are largely in-step with society’s values. Any differences are accommodated within the scope of diversity that is tolerated by our society.
Why are the large churches not championing the religious freedom of the smaller religions?
I suggest that there is ample evidence supporting the view that mainstream Christian churches don’t necessarily want the expression and exercise of fringe religion beliefs to be legally guaranteed and protected. They do not want to support offensive and intrusive displays of religion. Neither do they welcome the disharmony that accompanies unconstrained evangelical preaching of religious beliefs.
Such a qualified support of the religious freedom of minor religions, draws attention to the breadth and diversity of beliefs and practices that fall under the umbrella of religion. It also discloses the reality that some religions are inherently opposed to the beliefs and or practices of other religions. In some cases, for example, in regard to the church of Wicca, a religion may be viewed as the antithesis of religion, whose beliefs and practices are contrary to religious teachings and whose practices are anti-social.
Temporary Common Cause
Currently a number of religions appear to have found common cause in marriage equality laws, the threatened roll-back of exemptions from anti-discrimination provisions and in the Folau controversy. However it is also becoming noticeable that the major religions are distancing themselves from the vocal protests of the smaller, and fringe religions. The Folau matter is also revealing clear differences, with sectors of major religions voicing opposition to Folau-like expression of religious condemnation constituting religious expression in need of protection.
ERGO – RELIGIONS AINT RELIGIONS
On this basis, I suggest that what has long concerned our major churches appears not be widely appreciated by the Australian public. To protect religion entails protecting all religions, including the nutters, haters and the offensive.