Human rights and religious exceptionalism

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is conducting a public inquiry into Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century. The Rationalist Society of Australia (RSA), and other free thought organisations in Australia, are concerned this inquiry may be used by religions as a smoke screen to further their own agendas and shore up their already privileged position in the Australian political and financial system, rather than as a vehicle to explore broader issues central to freedom of belief and religion.

In the first place, the attention of the AHRC seems to be too narrowly focused on freedom of individuals and groups from religious persecution, which hardly exists in Australia. But to fully promote freedom of belief is not simply to promote absence of coercion; it is also to promote presence of choice. A more pressing problem in this country is the lack of real freedom of religious choice for many Australians, stemming from lack of exposure to alternatives. This has been exacerbated by the burgeoning number of “faith-based” schools, which accelerated under the previous government’s policy of generously funding religion.

The importance of choice is very clear from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the cornerstone of the AHRC mission, which insists on choice as a central component of freedom of belief (emphasis added):

1. … This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice;
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Choice implies a range of options from which one option can be selected. If we are talking about belief, this can only mean a range of different beliefs. So if we are to have freedom of religious belief, people must be presented with a range of religious choices, especially during childhood and adolescence when most people solidify their religious commitments. They need to have adequate knowledge of the various religions and of non-religious approaches to life from which they can choose. Belief can only be free when it is the result of free choice between viable options. If we are genuinely committed to freedom of belief and freedom of religion, we must make such knowledge available.

We believe this can only be accomplished by introducing courses in comparative religion in all government schools, at a level appropriate to the age of the children. Non-government schools would not have to teach such courses, but if they did not, they would not be eligible for any public support or funding, on the grounds that they were not meeting their human rights obligations to promote freedom of choice in religion and belief.

If this were implemented we would begin to have freedom of religion and belief in Australia. And if individuals were truly given a choice, as the ICCPR requires, rather than being indoctrinated at home and at school, it would be interesting to see what choices were then made.

Second, we are concerned that clauses which promote freedom of religion as a part of human rights proclamations such as the ICCPR are being used by some to curtail other important human rights. Such principles, which rightly condemn persecution or discrimination on religious grounds, are being used by some religious groups to stifle another crucial human right: freedom of expression. Laws which do this already exist in Victoria and Queensland and a federal version is being promoted by the AHRC in its proposed federal Freedom of Religion bill.

The Victorian Act makes it illegal “on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, [to] engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons” (Section 8). But can we reasonably deny to an African child who has been born with AIDS because a priest has told her mother the use of condoms is a sin, or a wife whose innocent husband has been killed by a religiously-motivated suicide bomber, or a woman whose clitoris has been mutilated by religious elders when she was a child, or a man who has been kept from contacting his children because his wife has joined an exclusive religious cult, the right to hate and detest the religion responsible? Let alone try to stop them from trying to convert others to their point of view. Serious contempt or even revulsion of religion may be the appropriate human response in such situations.

Religion seems to get away with its protected status by the sleight of hand of yoking itself with race, so that racial and religious tolerance and their flipsides, racial and religious vilification are presented together as indistinguishable. The Victorian Act is called the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, implying they are analogous. Who can quarrel with measures to combat racism, the argument goes, therefore we must stifle criticism of religion too.

However, this alleged link between race and religion is entirely specious: there are stark differences between them which bear significantly upon the question of protection from vilification.

First, a person is born into a race and cannot change it. Therefore, to vilify someone because of their race is clearly unjust and unjustified, similar to making fun of someone who is congenitally blind or lame.

Religious belief is the opposite: it is not a given; it is (or should be) a choice. You have, one hopes, consciously decided to hold certain religious beliefs. Therefore, you are responsible for holding them and for the consequences of holding them. And if the acting out of your religious beliefs is detrimental to the well-being of others, you are accountable for those harmful effects.

On the other hand, you cannot be held accountable for your race.

Second, race is a unique universal category, with various subcategories. You can’t not be a member of a race. So insisting on racial justice and equality is something we all benefit from. It does not affect just one section of the populace.

Conversely, religious belief is but a sub-set of the more general category of beliefs. People have beliefs about all kinds of things, including politics, sport, art and the ultimate nature of the universe. Because religious belief is just one type of belief among many, any proposal to single out religious belief and grant it special status or special protection requires justification. There is no doubt religion is significant in the lives of many people, but there are other beliefs just as significant for non-religious people, so significance alone is not such a justification.

Third, and most importantly, the race of the persons one interacts with has no intrinsic relevance to the outcomes of those interactions. Whether someone is caring for me, trying to kill me, or simply ignoring me, it is their behaviour that affects me, not the colour of their skin.

On the other hand the expression of religious belief can have devastating effects on others. Over the centuries millions of people have died or suffered (and continue to) as a direct result of people holding and acting out certain religious beliefs. (The same is true of political or nationalistic beliefs - religion is not on its own here.) So negative feelings towards religion may be simply one of many legitimate human responses to the expression of religious belief in the community and in the world.

Let’s face it, if religious belief were universally beneficent in its impact on all people, no one would even think of being negative about it. Unfortunately this is not the case and religion must take responsibility for itself and its consequences and stand up and be counted in the marketplace of ideas.

The irony is that some of the most virulent examples of incitement to hate occur in the sacred texts of our two biggest religions (see for example Luke 14:26 or Koran 60:1-2), but religious tracts are exempt from the scope of most anti-religious vilification legislation.

It is clear that while laws against racial intolerance are justifiable, laws against disparagement of religion are unacceptable in a free society. The fact that some believers may be “offended” by such disparagement or ridicule is neither here nor there. I am mortally offended every time a see a crucifix with its cruel depiction of a man being tortured to death, or see a woman wearing a hijab with its inherent message about women being lesser beings, but I tolerate them, because I know that is the price of living in a free society. Toleration must go both ways. It is easy to tolerate the views and behaviour of those we agree with, but the true test is being able to tolerate the views and behaviour and even the trenchant criticism of those whose views oppose ours. Many thoughtful religious people recognise this and don’t agree with the restrictive legislation.

Finally, the Rationalist Society of Australia is concerned about the number of pernicious cults that operate in Australia under the protection of our commitment to freedom of belief and religion. Such cults employ well-known mind-control techniques such as Milieu Control (e.g. Exclusive Brethren) and Confession (e.g. Scientology) to maintain a hold over their adherents. We do not advocate banning such organisations, but there is need for much greater knowledge in the community of the scope of these techniques and their effects so that people are forewarned and forearmed.

We propose an awareness campaign be instituted to alert the public to the nature of such techniques. The government, after consultation with religious, atheist and cult-awareness groups, should mount such a campaign is schools, medical centres and other community locations, setting out the dangers of the mind-control techniques used in cults and the difference between organisations that use them and religions which have an open and free approach.

Moreover, federal and state governments should withhold financial assistance in any form to organisations which use mind control techniques on their followers, and/or, do not uphold their human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of religion and belief is essential in a liberal democratic society, but it is one right among many and must be seen in the broader context, and not used as a crude bludgeon to beat down other equally important human rights, such as freedom of speech; freedom of association; freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; privacy; and respect. All human rights must be protected.