Religious Freedom Under Attack Everywhere

Several events reported in the media since Christmas have left me very concerned about the future of basic freedoms in the Western world.

Last month, during the debate on the abortion drug RU486, a number of people suggested that the personal faith of the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, who is well-known for his Catholic convictions, made him unfit for the office of Health Minister. These people suggested that he was biased on the issue of abortion because of his beliefs.

Last week, the British Prime Minister appeared on the Parkinson television show and admitted, somewhat reluctantly, that he prayed about the issue of whether to commit Britain to the war in Iraq. A storm of protest erupted about this. Some people suggested that he shouldn't have allowed his religious beliefs to affect his decision. Others said it was insensitive for him to claim God was on his side. Well, actually he didn't say that at all- he simply said that prayer was one of the factors in the process of making the decision, and that he was accountable to the people of Britain and also to God.

In the British Borough of Wyre, an elderly couple has been interrogated by the police for over an hour because they complained to the council about its homosexual rights policies. They asked the council if they could display Christian leaflets alongside homosexual rights leaflets, as part of the council's rather ironically labelled “diversity policy”. The police accused them of making “homophobic phone calls” and suggested they were liable to charges of “hate crimes.” Now the couple is seeking to have the council and police employees disciplined for over-stepping their authority.

Through these and countless other events which happen weekly, it is becoming apparent that the media and sections of the public believe that “religion” (and specifically christianity) should be kept out of public discourse. But worse than that, there seems to be a growing belief that “religious” people, usually christians, should not hold public office, because their religious ideals might affect their decisions.

Well of course, a person's religious ideas should affect their decision making processes. It would be a pretty weak religion that didn't affect our thinking about important issues. In fact, when religious ideals don't affect a person's judgements, that is usually condemned as hypocrisy. This applies to all religions and philosophies- christianity, atheism, secular humanism.

Journalists often talk about “separation of church and state” which is an American idea that does not apply to our legal system.

In Section 116, the Australian Constitution says this: “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 says firstly that the Australian Government cannot establish an “official” or “national” church. But it goes on to say that the Government cannot make religious tests for public office. In other words the government is not allowed to say what its officials are allowed to believe in or belong to. Ministers and public servants can be Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic or freemasons- and the government cannot pass laws to limit which of those groups can be appointed to office.

These are important freedoms for all of us, regardless of what we believe. If you don't like the Prime Minster's religious (or other) beliefs, then vote for someone else- that is what democracy is about.

The minute we start saying that a particular religious belief disqualifies a person from holding office, or that private prayer should not be allowed by our leaders, or that police should be free to intimidate people for expressing an opinion, then we run down a path of dictatorship and diminished freedom for everyone.