Wednesday, January 07, 2009

What we should suggest to the Government about encouraging harmony between different groups in society

(Warning: HUGE LONG blog.)

I had an enjoyable meeting and lunch with a separated brother yesterday (with whom I felt a great deal LESS "separation" than with some of my brethren and sistern with whom I am in full communion!) to talk about how Christian groups should respond to the Australian Human Rights Commission's Freedom in Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project. It is my understanding that the ACBC is making a submission on this on behalf of all the Catholic Churches in Australia, but also that the results will most probably filter into the whole "Charter of Rights" project - unless it finally all just falls into the "too hard" basket, which is very likely and is what happened to the HREOC’s earlier report "Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief" released in 1998 and the 2004 report "Religion, Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia".

I strongly suggest to you, if you want to have a fun half hour, to download and work through the "submission template" (a bit like a Women's Weekly questionnaire only without a score sheet at the end). You will soon get the idea of where this project is headed. It is also worth reading in connection with this the Discussion Paper ""Freedom of religion and belief and physical and mental wellbeing"" - which defines religion in terms of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as interpreted by the 1998 Report:
“[R]eligion and belief should be given a wide meaning, covering the broad spectrum of personal convictions and matters of conscience. It should include theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs. It should include minority and non-mainstream religions and belief systems as well as those of a more traditional or institutionalised nature. Religion or belief should be defined as a particular collection of ideas and/or practices:

- that relate to the nature and place of humanity in the universe and, where applicable, the relation of humanity to things supernatural;
- that encourage or require adherents to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or, where applicable, to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance;
- that are held by an identifiable group regardless of how loosely knit and varying in belief and practice;
- that are seen by adherents as constituting a religion or system of belief.

The definition should not apply to all beliefs but only to those that clearly involve issues of personal conviction, conscience or faith.”
The Discussion Paper is especially interesting because at first it appears to address religion as being a "health and wellbeing" issue only at the individual level. It becomes apparent, however, that it also considers the "health and wellbeing" that religious belief can bring to a particular community, but also (most importantly) for civil society as a whole. Catholics would be especially interested in the latter. It is, after all, because we are convinced that the protection of the Right to Freedom of Religion is a good for the well being of the whole of human society that we both recognise and promote this right.

My friend asked me to pen a few notes for him regarding my own take on what we as Christians should be suggesting to the Government about encouraging harmony between different belief groups in society, not just traditional religious, but also secularists and humanists and atheists etc. (Significantly, the defintion given above by the HREOC expressly includes this wide range of beliefs; the recent recongition of Humanism as a belief system for the purposes of Religious Education in Victorian schools supports this definition).

As Christians, we are united in being concerned about two forms of discrimination against religious believers today:
1) the commonly expressed expectation that opinions formed on the basis of religious belief should be excluded from political discourse in the public square on the basis of a false understanding of the "separation of Church and State".

2) the growing encroachment of legal restrictions upon the freedom of communities and individuals to act in accord with their religious beliefs in matters of conscience.
It is our belief that neither of these forms of discrimination serves the "health and wellbeing" of Australian society as a whole.

Some time ago, I wrote a review of Martin E. Marty's book "When Faiths Collide". Marty's thesis followed the idea of Georg Simmel, who wrote: "Two individuals or social groups cannot occupy precisely the same space, so the issue of exclusivity arises". Thus, differing religious communities with differing truth claims within the same civil society will inevitably result in conflict. Simply put, his solution was in terms of the virtue of showing "hospitality to the stranger". In my review I suggested that a better idea for the Australian context (in which we are ALL - except for the indigenous - "strangers" in this land) would be "hospitality to the neighbour". In other words (and you can take this as one of my guiding principles) differeing religious belief systems which lay claim to "absolute truth" can coexist AS LONG AS one of those "absolute truths" is respect for the human dignity and rights of the neighbour. I believe the contemporary Catholic Church demonstrates this in bucket loads.

That being said, what line of action should we suggest the Australian Government follow to achieve optimum "health and well being" for the whole of Australian society in respect to the undeniable diversity of religion and belief that exists in our nation? The answer is surely: to grant the greatest possible degree of protection and freedom of expression equally to each and every individual AND community in Australia to live and act (publically as well as privately) in accordance with their chosen beliefs (Article 18:1). This implies, on the other hand, that the Government never enact laws that would result in an coercion of conscience with regard to such religious life and action (Article 18:2).

Thus, citizens would have a recognised right to express and act upon religious belief not only in their private lives but also in the public (political) square free of being vilified simply because their opinions are religious. Thus laws could not be enacted that would force religious believers to act against their conscience.

In other words, we as Christians could suggest to the Government that it go beyond Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act, which (in line with the American Constitution) states that:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This is "religious freedom" expressed purely negatively. It does not address the very real responsibility that Government has toward the positive protection and support of the religions and beliefs of citizens for the good of society. Here as in the US, it actually encourages the idea that religious opinions and beliefs should be excluded from the public square (which is not, of course, what it actually says at all).

For those who fear that under such a situation Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general might lose the benefits that follow from a "priviliged" position in Australian society (if, in fact, such a position has not already been lost long ago!), I note here Cardinal Avery Dulles' point that "If the State would simply establish conditions under which the Church could carry on its mission unimpeded, it would do more for the Church than many Christian princes had done in the past." I believe that the protection of religious liberty for all citizens is precisely such a "condition" for the Church's life and mission in this nation.

Of course, there are several things that follow from this, not the least that of the responsibility of religious individuals and communities to recognise that respect for the dignity of every human being is a core value of true religion. The Government would be within its rights to encourage religious individuals and communities to recognise this.

The other, more serious question is: What about limitations on the exercise of religion? Several questions in the "Submission Template" put this succinctly:
Section 7: 10. a) Are there religious groups, practices and beliefs that you think are of concern to Australians?

b) Should these be subjected to legislative control, and should they be eligible for government grants and assistance?
And in the "Discussion Paper":
Area 3: a) Can discrimination against a religious community, under some circumstances, protect the health and wellbeing of individuals within that community?
b) Are there some instances in which the denial of religious freedoms can protect the wellbeing of religious communities?
c) Are there some instances in which the denial of religious freedoms can protect the wellbeing of the broader society?
The answer to these questions is: Of course. Only the most naive would deny that such limitations will be necessary under certain conditions. We can all imagine, at least in theory if not in practice, a religion that practiced the sacrifice of infants. Another example (far more in line with the Government's thinking) would be religiously motivated terrorism. Of course it is conceivable that there be "religious practices" that, far from being protected by law, may, under certain circumstances, be prohibited. In general such practices would be those which offend against the human dignity and safety of our nation's citizens.

But is the division between Religious Freedom and Legislative Limitation a "wide grey area" or a "thin black line"? The answer is somewhere in between. But the optimum would be that, legislatively speaking, we narrow down the limitations as close as possible to a line rather than a broad grey area. Article 18 suggests the following:
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Catholic social doctrine supports this. Such limitations will need to be formed upon the basis of an agreed doctrine of a "hierarchy of human rights". Freedom of Religion is a human right, but there are other rights, such as the right to life and liberty of person, which are "higher" rights than the right to religious freedom.

Unfortunately, here in Victoria, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘Victorian Charter of Rights’) has already shown how useless (and in fact damaging to freedom of conscience and religious liberty) it can be to make such limitations broader rather than narrower. The existence of this "Charter" did nothing to protect the coercion of Victorian doctors and nurses under the new Abortion Law Reform Bill. One suspects that this will be the area in which we religious believers will have to exercise the greatest degree of caution as the Federal Government considers the creation of a "Charter of Rights".

And so, finally, while on that topic, allow me to express very succinctly, my personal uneasiness with such a notion. There are two main difficulties - both arising from what I understand to be the "positivist" nature of such legislation, ie. the idea that such a piece of legislation itself becomes the foundation of human rights in this country:

1) Rights, which are real human rights, might not receive sufficient (or any) recognition in the final document. For instance, the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death. The exclusion of any given right from the Charter would legally mean that appeal to that right as a right is also excluded by the Law.

2) Invented or imagined "rights", which are not real human rights, may be included in such a document, and thus gain the legal status of "right" which may then be used to impede the religious freedom of Australian citizens. Such "rights" would include a "right to abortion" (as argued here in Victoria during the Abortion Law Reform debate), or a "right to sexual orientation" (as recently put forward by the UN).

This whole area is fraught with difficulty. One example alone will suffice. In the "Submission Template" we find the following questions:
3. How do you perceive gender in faith communities?

4. Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?

5. What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?

8. Should religious organisations (including religious schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity?
Do you see where that is headed?

28 Comments:

At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:38:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

In the "Submission Template" we find the following questions

Exactly. Certain positions are assumed and you have to tackle those before you can get on with your own position.

They don't even realise they *have* a world view and that it is already being imposed on others. (Or they do and they're hypocrites).

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:41:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

with whom I felt a great deal LESS "separation" than with some of my brethren and sistern with whom I am in full communion!

'tis the nature of the beast Homo Sapiens. Heck! there are some secularists I feel in closer communion with!

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:52:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

It does not address the very real responsibility that Government has toward the positive protection and support of the religions and beliefs of citizens for the good of society.

What do we expect of a society brought up to believe in the Dogma of the Absolute Separation of Church and State?

Of course, there are several things that follow from this, not the least that of the responsibility of religious individuals and communities to recognise that respect for the dignity of every human being is a core value of true religion. The Government would be within its rights to encourage religious individuals and communities to recognise this.

Hmmm. But what the Church means by this and what the State means by this are two different things entirely! For the latter it means, for example, that a homosexual's practice of sodomy must be tolerated and even approved. Now, does the State have the right to assert that?

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:56:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

Section 7: 10. a) Are there religious groups, practices and beliefs that you think are of concern to Australians?

Secularist: yes! Catholics should not be allowed to discrimate against homosexuals.

Catholic: yes! Secularists should not be allowed to force doctors and nurses to participate in abortions and Muslims should not be allowed to practice Female Genital Mutilation or Polygamy.

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:58:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

3. How do you perceive gender in faith communities?

I rarely think about it, unless some doofus of a bureaucrat with An Agenda the size of the Big Pineapple asks me the question.

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:59:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

4. Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?

Yes. Now take your Agenda and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:06:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

5. What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender
equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?


I obviously need to write my own blog post, but I'm having more fun, here!

Well let's see. Women should be allowed to keep their clitorises. I'd say that's a pretty important sort of right.

Secularist: I'm thinking the Catholic Church needs some more restrictions on it. Muslims are nice.

Catholic: I'm thinking secularists need to stop treating women like disposable semen receptacles and Muslims need to stop covering women head-to-toe in drapery.

Summary: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:08:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

8. Should religious organisations (including religious schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity?

Yes. Now sod off.

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:15:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

Area 3: a) Can discrimination against a religious community, under some circumstances, protect the health and wellbeing of individuals within that community?

Yes! Forcing secularists to stop teaching sex ed in schools would be of great benefit to the health and well-being of countless teens.

Depriving secularists and others of pornography and "adult" shops would likewise benefit the whole community.

Making Prostitution illegal would protect both "clients" and prostitutes alike.

c) Are there some instances in which the denial of religious freedoms can protect the wellbeing of the broader society?

Yes! Depriving secularists of the freedom to disseminate their harmful view of the world as irreligious would keep such basic notions as "equality" and the "dignity of the human person" on the table.

The possibilities are endless!

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:24:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

The existence of this "Charter" did nothing to protect the coercion of Victorian doctors and nurses under the new Abortion Law Reform Bill.

Exactly, because it was only really drafted to prosecute Christians in "defence" of Muslims etc. It was certainly *never* intended to protect Christians, even if perhaps some of the people voting for it thought it would.

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:37:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

i vote we let Louise do the submission for us

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:21:00 pm , Blogger Schütz said...

I should have let Louise write this blog entry! Would have saved me a whole afternoon! (Luckily it was a task I had to do for work - and a pleasant one too!).

 
At Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:27:00 pm , Blogger Schütz said...

The possibilities are endless!

Yes. I mean if you have to cover all sorts of belief AND non-belief...

What do you think of that quotation from the 1998 report "The definition should not apply to all beliefs but only to those that clearly involve issues of personal conviction, conscience or faith." What sort of belief IS NOT an issue of "personal conviction, conscience or faith" - what else IS a "belief"???

Summary: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

You know what? Me too. It will all end in tears!

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:05:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

Yes it will end in tears.

If you want your own practices left alone in respect of your belief that they are divinely mandated, how do you argue that someone else's contrary practices that they no less believe are divinely mandated be stopped?

Let's put it in a less religiously controversial framework: selling cigarettes. It's legal to sell cigarettes. There's also a large body or research saying cigarette smoking poses serious health risks, which as actualised present a large cost, human and financial, to society. But, if I open a grocery store, I am not required to sell cigarettes. However, if I work for a grocery that sells cigarettes, am I required to sell them though my belief is I am participating in a destructive act?

What's the difference? This: there is no Right To Smoke.

It comes down to this: respect for human dignity and the rights of one's neighbour are meaningless platitudes -- unless what those rights are, what that dignity entails, and what it is to respect it, are laid out, because there are varying ideas, some of them claiming to be divinely revealed, about all of that.

Toward I solution I do not have, I would suggest the following (these issues being as hot here as there):

1. "Negative" formulations must be used. Since what is allowed is, well, allowed, what is needed is not a comprehensive list of that, but of what is not allowed. God knows that; maybe we should follow his example. It's why the five (which you number four through ten) commandments regarding our behaviour toward each other are framed as Thou Shalt Nots rather than Thou Shalts. It's why the Golden Rule actually says That which is hurtful to thy neighbour do not do (the "positive" Do Unto Others being Christian revisionism).

2. Related to that is this -- what or who is the source of these rights? You mention American documents -- in another of them, in which we took this idea to be so essential that it justified throwing off a legitimate temporal authority, we said that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, not the state, with certain inalienable rights, and that among them, or in the current phrase including but not limited to, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is only when the state is the author, explicitly or implicitly, of these rights that "positive" enumerations or prescriptions of them happen; and when they happen, the state, explicitly or implicitly, has become their author, not God, in which case the basis of the whole effort fails regardless of outcome.

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:10:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

Sorry, it's five through ten on the commandments, since you number God's fifth one as the fourth and split his tenth one into two.

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:26:00 am , Anonymous Christine said...

Yep, it's a problem. Before many hospitals practiced bloodless surgery Jehovah's Witnesses were willing to let their children die rather than receive blood transfusions.

So when some civic authorities intervened in order to save those children's lives, the Witnesses claimed their religious rights were being violated.

Who gets to decide on the fate of an innocent child in such an instance when his/her very life is at stake?

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:26:00 am , Anonymous Christine said...

And what, although it is unlikely, if that child had begged the state to intervene? Whose rights come first, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the parents, or the child's? Do we violate the religious rights of the parents on behalf of the child or do we allow the child to die in order to maintain the separation of church and state?

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:26:00 am , Blogger Schütz said...

Yes, I agree with both of you, Christine and PE.

1) If the State is the author of the rights, then the State can revoke such rights as easily as grant them. As the American constitution recognises, rights (such as the right to be "treated equally" under law) are "endowed" by "the Creator". But how do we know the will of the Creator, and how can this be posited in a way that at least has a claim to universality? The Catholic answer is: Natural Law. Not everyone accepts that, but it is a respectable and rational philosophical position.

2) The case of the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion to save a child's life would bring the notion of a "hierarchy of rights" into play. And getting agreement on that would be a doosie, as they say.

3) I also agree that "negative limitations" ("Thou shalt nots") would probably be the more accurate way of defining the "thin grey boundary" between Freedom of Religion and the Health and Well Being of Society than any "positive" statement of areas in which Religious believers are free to act.

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:26:00 am , Anonymous matthias said...

Please do not let Senator Bob Brown get a hold of this. He will let loose on Exclusive Brethen- a mob i do not like -and other groups,perhaps even catholics,using his usual sanctimonious and secular pietist language

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:59:00 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Catholic: yes! Secularists should not be allowed to force doctors and nurses to participate in abortions and Muslims should not be allowed to practice Female Genital Mutilation or Polygamy.


Ok, could I - for my own clarity of thinking - ask that SHUTZ OR LOUISE articulate the Catholic positions on these things. What are we to say when in one of "those conversations" with a friend or colleague.

What is the Catholic answer to that Secularist who says I don't care what you believe in your own world, but you have no right to influence the laws that apply to those of us who don't agree with you and democratically support positions contrary to what your church says

Kevin09

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:58:00 pm , Blogger Schütz said...

I think, Kevin09 (I take it you're not THE Kevin?), it is actually very simple. Full respect for the other means allowing them full elbow room in the public square. No believer, secular or religious, should be required to leave his or her beliefs hanging on the hat stand in the hallway when they venture out into the public square.

"My world" is "your world". Contra Simmel, we occupy the same space. In a democratic society, we have enough respect for each other to let all citizens, of whatever belief, to participate in the democratic process.

In a democracy, every citizen has the right to influence the laws of their nation, whatever their belief.

The Catholic Church actually regards this participation in the political process is as a religious duty for all Catholics, and right for all citizens regardless of their beliefs.

We view the person holistically - including what goes on in their heads. We might not agree with what you say, but (as I think a very non-Catholic philosopher once said) we support your right to say it.

That does not mean that we abandon our very strong beliefs about what is moral and ethical for all human beings. If something is right and good, it is right and good for everyone. It is precisely for this reason that we are obligated to be witnesses to our beliefs in the world.

 
At Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:37:00 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi David and friends,

I'm the separated brother, though I don't feel very separated.

Once we understand the respective boundaries we find what we have in common far outweighs what divides.

Do you confess the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary, suffered and died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, risen physically and gloriously from the dead, ascended on high to the right hand of God our Father where he ever lives to intercede for His children, and one day to come again to put all wrongs to rights, establishing the new heavens and new earth, our home of righteousness?

Of course you do and so do I.

David has sent me a pile of gold nuggets and I will get back separately to him.

Warmest Regards, in Christ

David Palmer

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 12:05:00 am , Blogger Schütz said...

Good on you, David - I didn't identify you because of confidentiality and all that, but I really thank you for getting me working on these ideas which have been boiling away for a bit.

Do excuse the regular rabble who visit these pages and leave comments - they are as mad as I am! Please come back and drop in a comment whenever you want to, if you want to keep company with such as us!

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 2:19:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

From the regular rabble, and a separated brother quite happy to be separated from the errors of Rome clouding what truth remains there:

If we're all done with the warm fuzzies, the fact is, the person who opposes blood transfusions on religiously based moral grounds has no less a repugnance and refusal than the person who opposes elective abortion on religiously based moral grounds.

If you are going to step in an compel a transfusion, you are no less imposing one morality over another than if you step in an compel an abortion. If you are going to step in an compel a physician to perform a transfusion, you are no less imposing one morality over another than if you step in and compel a physician to perform an abortion.

So after all the pretty talk, it really comes down to -- and the same is true of the pretty talk on other posts re "ecumenism" and "dialogue" and other dated code words and buzz words -- not that no morality, or religion from which it is derived, will be imposed on another, but whose morality and religion and under what circumstances.

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 6:13:00 am , Anonymous Christine said...

But that doesn't answer my question -- what if the child of JW parents needed a blood transfusion and the parents refused on religious grounds but the child wanted to save his/her life by having the transfusion?

Whose rights are honored -- the parents, the child or the state acting on behalf of the child? Who has the greate value?

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 6:27:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

I don't have an answer to your question.

Based on what I believe, give the kid the transfusion and save his life, the hell with the rest.

But I'm aware that's based on what I believe, which if it is right means that other beliefs which would not do that are wrong, and must be overridden when push comes to shove. And that those who would require Catholic pharmacists -- not sure if you Aussies follow English usage here, but if you do, chemists -- to dispense contraceptives or Catholic physicians to perform abortions feel the same way about enforcing that.

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 9:32:00 am , Blogger Louise said...

If you are going to step in an compel a transfusion, you are no less imposing one morality over another than if you step in an compel an abortion.

Exactly.

So after all the pretty talk, it really comes down to ...whose morality and religion and under what circumstances.

Exactly.

In a pluralist nation, which lacks any real cohesion apart from the remnant of Judeo-Christian tradition held by all unconsciously, it means that for any given law or bureaucratic decision, one set of people are winners and one set are losers.

This probably makes no real difference if the decision involves the placement of a hospital, or the redevelopment of a section of the city, or a roundabout, or whether the MPs will get a bigger salary this year. It will make a huge difference, if it concerns the right of children to have both a mother and a father, or the right of granny not to pressured into being topped by a "doctor."

 
At Friday, January 09, 2009 9:39:00 am , Blogger Louise said...

And that those who would require Catholic pharmacists -- not sure if you Aussies follow English usage here, but if you do, chemists -- to dispense contraceptives or Catholic physicians to perform abortions feel the same way about enforcing that.

Yes they do. The problem is (or one of the problems) that whereas they perceive Christians wanting to "impose their morality" on others, they don't really see that they wish to do the same.

It's another irregular verb: I legislate, you impose, they persecute.

I reiterate: "I have a bad feeling about this."

(Maybe we should get George Lucas to write the submission?)

Pleased to "meet" you, David P. Thanks, David and David, for going through this exercise. I am planning to write my own submission, so this post was very helpful.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home