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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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.