Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The loveless marriage: 'religious' and 'freedom'

By Hugh Harris - posted Wednesday, 23 December 2015


This would be fine if the "purpose" related solely to the services provided. But the day to day services provided by Christian groups, for example, are obliquely related to a much larger mission to promote the Christian faith.

Let's consider this argument in relation to education. Scripture Union Queensland's mission is making "God's Good News known to children, young people and families, to encourage them to become followers of God through regular Bible reading and prayer and also to link up with their local church." Generate Ministries describes their mission as transforming the lives of young people, and using SRE to "empower young people by teaching God's word." The "purpose" of finding more followers for God is difficult to square with the common good, particularly so in our society where a vanishing minority of Australians attend church (8%) or observe religious doctrine (15% males, 22% females). The "purpose" of faith groups doesn't necessarily coincide with the public good.

Add to this the expectation of taxpayers in a democracy that tax dollars should go to projects in the public interest. As "public interest" suggests, the demographics of the public have a direct bearing on its interests, and we should contrast the opposing trajectories of policies seeking to advance faith, with the rapidly declining numbers of the faithful.

Advertisement

Controversies over the teaching materials and methods used in the Special Religious Instruction (SRI) program in Victoria are emblematic of the widening gulf. Once the Victorian government made enrolments optional, the programme became unsustainable due to public disinterest. When the Victorian government scrapped it from the curriculum (NB: it is still available outside of hours if parents wish), some saw it as an attack on religious freedom. I honestly don't see how. Parents are free to take their children to Sunday school or to any church, mosque, synagogue or other place of worship of their choosing.

This shouldn't mean that religion has no place at all in schools. But consider how instructing them in one form of Christianity, differs from educating them in comparative religious education. Educating children about the world's religions in a respectful, balanced and neutral way acknowledges our cultural diversity, and promotes social cohesion by encouraging the critical thinking necessary to avoid the pitfalls of radicalisation.

The Roundtable didn't discuss same-sex marriage in great detail. But the rainbow coloured elephant in the room was addressed by an initiative to hold future discussions on matters of public interest. The most prominent of these is same-sex marriage.

And in the gay marriage debate religious freedom has become the bulwark used to fend off change. Same sex marriage is a threat, attack and calculated assault on the freedom of the religious person. Consider how absurd this is. One person believes in same sex marriage. Another does not. Their beliefs are equally protected. But only one side of the debate has their actual right to marry discriminated against.

It's difficult to see how policies favouring one set of beliefs will survive in the long term. The loveless marriage of the words "religious" and "freedom" seems destined to end in the union of "belief" and "freedom". Hopefully they'll stay together for a long time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

35 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Hugh Harris is a freelance writer who owns a blog called The Rational Razor on philosophy, and rational thought, and is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Hugh Harris

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Hugh Harris
Article Tools
Comment 35 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy