Is the prohibition of discrimination dictated by religious belief a loss of religious freedom? If so, is a restraint of religious freedom necessarily undesirable?
Reading Time: < 1 minute
A commentary is disguised as front page news in the current The Weekend Australian. The issue itself is outlined in the attached news item.
My brief comment is motivated by those who immediately jump to the conclusion that religious freedom was lost in this instance, and in so doing, misunderstand and misinform.
While freedom to believe is absolute, freedom to exercise beliefs or religion only extend as far as they do not breach the law. Religions that advocate polygamy, underage marriage, stoning of adulterers, racial segregation, gender inequality etc are prevented from practicing such beliefs because they are prohibited by our law. Similarly, our current law restricts discrimination against same sex married people, even by individuals who believe that their religion requires them to do so.
Where society feels that religious people should not be bound by laws at odds with their religious beliefs, they may be legally excused from complying with such laws. Business owners are currently not exempt from laws prohibiting discrimination against parties to same sex marriages.
‘Religious freedom lost as magazine shuts’ is a sensationalist but misleading headline. Rather than be alarmed by the plight of Luke and Carla Burrell, we should be glad that religious freedoms are restricted. Christianity during the dark ages and Isis in the Middle East illustrate what unrestrained religious freedom looks like, and how it inevitably denies the rights of others. In endeavoring to reconcile competing rights in society, our secular government and secular law are intrinsically required to protect rights by containing and restricting the freedom of actions of other individuals and groups, regardless of the reasons for their desire to break the law. Society’s stance and determination of core values provides some guidance for the reconciliation of competing rights.
(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)