ࡱ> %` 0bjbj"x"x 8@@,9FFFFZZZ8<Lb&<RR0b2b2b2b2b2b2b$dh gVbH:H:H:VbFX@Rpkb"BBBH:0bBH:0bBB:H,@H }]TZ:@*,H 0bb<b6H gdAg@Hg@H m'Bo. 4=VbVbAbH:H:H:H:vvFFF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN THE 21ST CENTURY Submission by Vickie Janson My submission pertains predominately to freedom of religion as it pertains to the observance of Islam or Christianity in Australia, as these are the only two faiths I can say I have had sufficient exposure to in order to offer informed comment or concern. According to Tom Calmas foreword to this invitation for submissions, freedom of religion and belief are vitally important rights that all people have, irrespective of their religious affiliation, and people must not be vilified or alienated because of these beliefs. While I agree with Mr Calma that this is a Western ideal, the reality is that neither communist nor Islamic nations actually uphold these sentiments or reflect them in their 21st century legislation. The New Zealand Herald published an article 10 October 2008 which stated: Irans hardline Islamic Government encourages gender separation, and last year backed a proposal to create a womens bicycle which covered the riders legs and upper body. A women only taxi service, with female drivers, has been started in main cities and buses and underground trains are segregated. Although there are more women in parliament than in Britain, they still have to seek permission from their husbands to work outside the home or travel abroad, are subjected to spot checks by patrols, lose custody of the children in divorce cases and have half the inheritance rights of males. According to Amnesty International, women are still stoned to death for adultery even though the practice is officially outlawed, and a girl who has been raped can be murdered with impunity by her father or another male relation seeking to cleanse the stain on the family name. In recent months a teacher was imprisoned by a Sharia Court for naming a teddy bear Muhammad at the request of her students. Criminal charges may be laid under Sharia Law which can result in the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy. Some countries that support corporate punishment, segregation of the sexes, discriminate against women in employment, deny freedom of choice regarding personal attire, offer a lesser legal status to women and non-Muslims are ironically still signatories to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. What value can we really place on such declarations when the reality is so far removed from the ideal? It is from these nations that people genuinely flee persecution and injustice in search of freedom. But it must also be noted that many who arrive on Western shores do not embrace the freedoms on offer, but wish to spread the same discriminatory ideology from their nation of origin and introduce the same discriminatory legal system. Should we offer freedom to manifest religious beliefs attached to a political / legal system which may potentially erode Australias own cultural values and challenge the current political / legal system? Islam has a mission approach to spreading its message and actively pushes for Sharia Compliance within the democratic framework. When we look around the world and note the differences, do we desire to promote an ideology which at its core upholds segregation, rather than integration? Consider Mecca as a symbol of true Islam its so holy that non-Muslims are forbidden entry what does this tell us? There are now no go zones for non-Muslims in France these are zones that are a law unto themselves Sharia Law. Should freedom of religion extend to no go zones for non-Muslims in Australia? Over the past seven years I have been directed to the women only section in Islamic public lectures in the Melbourne University and note there are Muslim only toilets at La Trobe University. I believe allowing the manifestation of religious beliefs that are contrary to our own cultural norms of gender equality is nothing short of cultural suicide all in the name of religious freedom. What is really the difference between white only pubs and Muslim only toilets? It appears that without installing boundaries to the notion of freedom that freedom itself can be used as a vehicle headed for a new type of bondage. While polygamy and sharia compliance are not recognised in Australian law both are recognised and practiced by a growing number of Australian Muslims. What benefit is the government stance in not recognising something that is both accepted and actively promoted? Its not just that the government is turning a blind eye, but that it can be said the government is endorsing sharia practices by allowing sharia compliance in the food, hospitality and finance sectors. These sharia standards, from the same sharia system which sanctions human rights violations, are in preference to very adequate Australian Industry Standards. Doesnt upholding sharia in any shape or form set a legal precedent for further sharia implementation? Shouldnt Australia be insisting upon Australian Law as the standard and the separation of church and state as embodied in the Constitution? Sharia is the legal arm of Islam and it is my opinion that in a free democracy this arm must be severed. Sharia compliance in essence unifies church and state while the constitution separates these functions. While many have argued about the morality of polygamy and the lack of equality for women, there is also the complicated issues that arise from the families born of these arrangements. It has been my observation that Muslim women do not adopt the same family name of their husband and therefore connecting the husband with multiple wives becomes difficult. I dont believe polygamy is a widespread practice in Australia however there is no doubt that it is practiced. I had an encounter with a Lebanese woman who was greatly distressed that her relatively new husband was interviewing prospective second brides. When I explained that this was illegal in Australia she said we are Muslims the Imam will marry him to other wives because Muhammad said so theres nothing I can do to stop him. Australian law was inconsequential. For this woman to take a stand against the practice which was against her will, she would have been isolated and rejected by her own community who often will not question anything ordained by Muhammad. In reality, where is her protection from being dragged into a polygamist union? To add to the social dilemma, in this particular family there wasnt anyone employed. Should the tax payer be supporting a man who is taking an extra wife when he has no personal means of supporting one wife? And should society support a man whose theology motivates him to produce more Muslims through procreation while he is unwilling to abide by the law of the land or become a contributing member of society? How do we expect the offspring of such a union to adopt Australian values? (i.e equality ) Australian Values: Since the publication of Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief in 1998 there has been quite a bit of public discourse about Australian Values. I believe it is fair to say that the majority of Australians are not outwardly religious. This does not mean that they dont hold strong convictions and sincere beliefs, however it is not a practice of the majority of Australians to display these convictions or beliefs in ways many faith communities do; in dress, ritual, symbols etc. While traditional Christianity has symbols such as the cross, these are sometimes worn by many as fashion statements with no conscious affiliation to the faith by the wearer. Even when worn for religious reasons, a cross is a fairly inconspicuous piece of jewellery that doesnt tend to invoke a great deal of interest from anyone. I believe Australians are generally fair dinkum people who accept people for who they are and are open to people wearing any sort of clothing. Having said this, I believe that Australian culture is by nature open, honest and transparent and there are limits even in clothing where this spirit of transparency and openness is offended. Freedom of expression does not allow a person to run naked in public this is an offence because it is deemed as indecent exposure. And I believe excessive covering that covers the face is an offence in an open culture it is indecent underexposure. If people are fair dinkum about integration I believe it is reasonable to expect decent exposure in order to make integration possible. I cannot accept that a face covering (the niqab) is not a real barrier to meaningful communication after all, good relationships are built on trust. Hiding behind a face covering does not invoke feelings of trust. In Australian culture face coverings are associated with bank robbers, people shamed and hiding from the public camera, and international images of executioners and terrorists. There is no positive image invoked. I believe there should be legislation prohibiting indecent underexposure just as there are laws for indecent over exposure. If a motorcyclist must remove a full face helmet in a bank, and I have been asked to remove sunglasses from on top of my head in a court room why cant we ask Muslim Australian citizens to offer this goodwill gesture of transparency towards their fellow countrymen? I was appalled to see Muslim women appear in the full burqa (with niqab) at one VCAT hearing in the first case of Religious Vilification in Victoria who refused to stand for the infidel judge because Muslims dont acknowledge infidel law. Their comments were overheard. This chosen segregation and lack of transparency was in stark contrast to another Muslim woman present who wore no veil or Islamic clothing at all and was able to chat to others freely. The irony these burqad women supported prosecution for vilification while simultaneously vilifying the judge, the system and the people present. Are we fools to allow religious freedom to the extreme so that freedom and democracy itself can be mocked and undermined? If we value our freedoms and Australian values then I believe they must be safeguarded. Australian Values and Christian Culture: While nearly 70% of Australians define themselves as Christian and this shows a willingness to be identified as such it is probably true that a high percentage of these people are not necessarily active in churches. Again many have Christian values without being outwardly religious. What is meant by Christian Values? I believe Christian Values are taught to most children in various forms. For example the Golden Rule to treat others the way you would want to be treated is a Biblical command. Loving your neighbour can be equated in the Australian colloquium as mateship. Honesty and integrity and a good work ethic are valued. While the unsavoury elements of human nature are universal, at least in Western democracies equality for the foreigner amongst us and human rights for all are legislated. This is true of nations considered as Christian but not true of all nations. A survey by Freedom House shows the comparative advantage of Christianity for democracy and the protection of human rights to flourish. However the same survey goes on to indicate that both these values are rare in the Islamic world. According to Bassam Tibi, a Muslim Professor of Islamic Studies at Geottigen University, human right is an utterly strange value for Islam. The individual does not exist in Islam because this religion makes no distinction between individual, society and state. Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of the Barnabas Fund, describes Islams communal view of human society as underpinning the violent responses to the Rushdie affair, to the Danish cartoons and to Pope Benedicts lecture at Regensburg in which he quoted a reference to Islam as spreading faith by the sword. Dr Sookhdeo attributes these responses to the Islamic view that if one non-Muslim transgresses, the whole non-Muslim community worldwide is responsible and must be punished until it compensates and appeases the Muslims for the offence. It is not the individual who is punished after due legal process, as is the case in the West, but the whole community to which he nominally belongs is subjected to violence. We see the same phenomena in the troubled tribal areas of the world such as Africa. And Islamic history documents the birth of Islam in the tribal region of Arabia. It is probably not surprising that this communal or tribal ideology was Islamised in the same way that other pre-Islamic cultural and religious practices were. It is our foundational ideology or worldview which produces the culture in which we live. Islam has an ideology centred on the group and the West has an ideology centred on the individual. This is perhaps why the exercising of Sharia Law around the world undermines notions of freedom and democracy. In recent months SBS World News and other mainstream media have documented examples from three Muslim majority countries where Sharia Courts have raised attention in the West. In one example a woman was sentenced to twenty lashes for being seen with a man, another English woman was sentenced to imprisonment for naming a teddy bear Muhammad at the request of her young students, and more recently a young man has been sentenced to death for downloading un-Islamic literature from a website. No free thinking individual could conceive that these punishments in any way fit the crime. Yet those who believe that bringing shame to the community is a gross sin are happy to legislate in favour of such disproportionate punishments. In 2005, well known Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan called for a moratorium on the brutal hudud punishments still implemented by some Sharia Courts, such as amputation and flogging. Yet several Islamic scholars opposed the suggestion. Sheikh Muhammad al-Shinqiti, Director of the Islamic Center of South Plains in Lubbock, Texas, claimed that harshness was part of sharia and any attempt at softening it was giving in to Western Christian concepts which were incompatible with Islam. (This from a man who lives in the West) Shinqiti stated that a personalised faith, like that of Christians, leads to corruption and immorality. He preferred the detachment and severity of Islam, citing the Quranic verse: And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the last day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. (Surah 24:2, translation not specified) Harshness is here seen to be at the heart of Islam. The inference is that Christianity is weak and contemptible because it has love and mercy at its very core. In an address to the Christian Legal Society in December 2005, Charles Francis, AM, QC, RFD stated religious beliefs have political consequences. Different religions have radically different values and can produce very different types of societies. I believe this is an observable reality. Muslims obviously wish to foster Islamic culture within Western societies yet the freedoms and values enjoyed in the West stem from a conflicting Judeo/Christian culture. In the same address Mr Francis lamented the erroneous concept within the preamble to Victorias Racial and Religious Vilification Act (2001) which assumes Victorians may derive benefits from religious diversity, just as we may derive benefits from cultural diversity. He asserts this is a grave error concluding that we derive benefits from truth, but in so far as religions may express concepts which are false, that falsity operates to the detriment of the State. Having listened to the Vilification Case against Catch the Fire Ministries in its entirety, I felt convinced that this new law in Victoria was being used as a Blasphemy Law the Blasphemy Law preventing the desecration of religious symbols and/or belief systems themselves thereby prohibiting freedom to criticise belief. The fact that someone may feel vilified because they attach themselves to a symbol or belief system does not in fact prove that criticism of the symbol or belief was intended to invoke that response. Personal responsibility must also be assumed for personal responses something difficult for an ideology which embraces a communal rather than personal view of life. Australian Values and Preserving Our Heritage: There is a great deal of talk about recognising minorities and respecting their culture in order to preserve it. Yet this appears to be at the expense of recognising Australian culture and heritage. How many Australians are familiar with their own history and foundations? Australia has an undeniably Christian heritage for better or for worse its simply history. To ignore this is to re-write or re-interpret history in order not to offend non-Christian people. I am concerned for the lack of integrity in academia. Dr David Mitchell, Australian Lawyer, past Attorney General of the African nation Lesotho, ordained Presbyterian Minister and past Senior Executive within the Australian Public Service provides us with a little insight into Australias Christian heritage. What follows are excerpts from a paper presented by him at the Summit Australia Conference January 2008 titled The Foundation of Australian Law; What is law and where does it come from? I submit this because I believe it is clear that Australian democracy is founded on Christian Values and the Democratic Rule of Law while Islam is founded on Islamic values and Sharia Law - in many ways these values and laws are quite incompatible. In about 888AD King Alfred the Great declared the law of England to be the Ten Commandments read in the light of the whole of Scripture. He was declaring what was already the basis of the law of the land. Much of his decree has been preserved and is technically known as the Domes of King Alfred. Historically in England, the power of executive government rested in the King. He was regarded as Gods representative for ruling the nation. He was not unfettered in this responsibility but was required to govern lawfully, justly and mercifully, to maintain Gods law and to regard the Bible as the rule for the whole of life and government. These requirements were incorporated into the coronation oath by at least 973 AD for the coronation of King Edgar, and have remained as part of the coronation oath ever since. In 1688 these requirements were recognised by statute in the British parliament. It was not the statute that made them law. These rules were the law before the statute, but appear to be largely forgotten. The statute only restated the pre-existing law. These very requirements were part of the promises made by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in her coronation ceremony. Section 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution recognises that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen but is exercisable (only) by the Governor General as the Queens representative. He is supposed to represent the Queen by implementing the Queens responsibility in Australia to ensure that the laws are lawful, just and merciful and that Gods law is maintained in Australia and the Bible is regarded as the rule for the whole of life and government. The Christian and Biblical character of law established in the various Australian colonies is supported by the judgment of Mr Justice Hargrave in 1874 in the case of ex parte Thackeray (1874 13 S.C.R. (NSW) 1 at p. 61). He said: We, the colonists of New South Wales, bring out with us (to adopt the words of Blackstone), this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by Coke and Blackstone and every other English judge long before any of our colonies were in legal existence or even thought of, that Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scriptures to be of universal obligation , is part of our colonial law as clearly explained by Blackstone Vol. 1 pp.42-3; and Vol. IV pp.43 60. This statement continues as a judicially unchallenged precedent to the present day. It is not surprising that it is unchallenged since it presents the true basis of Australian common law. The Christian theory of government and law in Australia did not change with the agreement of the colonies to establish a federal parliament. The Federal Commonwealth of Australia came into existence on 1st January 1901. The preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act begins: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indivisible Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.. It is important to note that reliance on God is clearly expressed. Quick and Garran in their authoritative book on the Constitution recognise that this appeal to deity was inserted in the Constitution at the suggestion of most of the Colonial Legislative Chambers, and in response to numerous and largely signed petitions received from the people of every colony represented in the Federal Convention that prepared the text for the act. It can be concluded that Australian law and culture is a product of Christian values. While the separation of church and state is rightly legislated, the influence upon legislation and culture by Christianity is undeniable. As we look at other systems of governance and cultures, as far as equality and human rights go, I dont believe the democratic system is such a poor choice. The rule of law talks about the protection of the individual by God-given liberties, rather than by an all-powerful, law-giving government endowed with god-like powers over civil society. Democracy flourished in the West because the Judeo/Christian culture accepts freedom of choice and allows the legal system to reflect the equality of souls in the eyes of God. This is in stark contrast to sharia law which doesnt just influence society, but controls it. I see the spread of sharia compliance in Australia as a dangerous phenomenon in our free land and one that should be legislated against. In essence, something that undermines democracy is seditious. If freedom of religion and belief is to be protected then the Sharia component of Islamic belief must be eliminated for there is no equality under sharia law for Muslim and non-Muslim and there is no freedom to change ones religion under sharia law. In Islam, freedom of religion and human rights are replaced by Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws which may incur the death penalty. Apostasy is seen as treason against the Islamic state or Umma which is the faith community. To say Australia is not complying with sharia standards would be rather nave when we have compliance in many industries including banking and finance. The NAB, a National icon, offers scholarships in Islamic finance Australian money being presented in seminars as haram (forbidden or unclean) and Islamic finance as halal (allowed or clean). If integration is an Australian value yet we cant eat the same food, use the same money, or at La Trobe University, use the same toilet I wonder how this integration is really being played out. Personally, I have found many Muslim women choose segregation from other Australians not through fear of other Australians but through fear of watering down their own faith. Western women are often stereotyped as loose women and the Australian community generally as drunks and undesirable. At an open mosque day in Preston I heard the Islamic leader state that the government didnt care about Australians and the evidence for this was that there are pubs on every corner. Religious Muslims support prohibition and judge even social drinking quite harshly. If we want to measure Islamic attitudes toward Christians it is probably not unreasonable to consider how Christians and other non-Muslims are treated in many Islamic lands. Whether Western peoples consider themselves Christian or not, Eastern people tend to view the entire West as Christian. Christianity and Western democracy are often seen as synonymous concepts. Are Christian minorities protected in Islamic lands are they free to build churches in Saudi Arabia, do they have equal representation in sharia courts in Pakistan or are they often despised, discriminated against and persecuted? While two wrongs do not make a right and we should treat Muslims they way we like to be treated, it would be ignorant to think that Islam as a community enshrines this same value. As the community grows within our own promoting its own faith, values, culture, religion and laws that stem from this we may well see more of the violence we witnessed in France and general hostilities manifesting in terrorism in New York, Spain, London and Western vacation spots like Bali. Sharia advocates teach that drinking and music are evil, men and women should be segregated and as I have heard at the Melbourne University, the only legitimate reason for a Muslim being in a non-Muslim land (except to seek asylum, medical assistance or to learn a trade to take back to a Muslim land) is to perform dawah to proselytise. The aim to Islamise society, including laws, is openly preached in Australia. This concerns me. Left unfettered, democracy may be used to overturn itself. In the eyes of Islamic enthusiasts, its just a matter of time. Terrorists offer the quick solution by violent means whereas good law abiding citizens take the slow and peaceful road to reform. Either way, Australia needs to consider, do we want to accommodate this? To quote the current Prime Minister of Turkey (despite his pro-democracy stance)- Democracy is like a street car. You ride it until you arrive at your destination and then you get off.  I believe other Muslims, including Australians, may hold this same view and with such a weight of damning testimony it is not discriminatory to test the sincerity of citizens. Included below is an article by Patrick Sookhdeo on the trends in the Islamic world relating to democracy and discrimination within sharia; it is worth noting that although Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution guarantees religious freedom, it also states that no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. And Article 89 states that the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court will include experts on Islamic law. Islamic law does not give equality to non-Muslims. Discriminatory legislation threatens to exacerbate difficulties of Christians in Iraq as well as the Maldives and Iran Amidst the growing concern for the rights of Muslims in the West, in particular the implementation of sharia, what is little known is the growing legal discrimination against Christians in the Muslim world. Whereas in the West Islam is given full freedom to practise its faith and to engage in mission, in the Muslim world the general trend is towards restricting the rights of Christians. Iraq no political representation for Christian minority? On 24 September the Iraqi Parliament approved the long-delayed Provincial Election Law, which allows provincial elections in Iraq to go ahead. Yet simultaneously it dropped Article 50, which guarantees a specific number of seats for minorities, including Christians, in the Regional Councils. The parliaments decision now has to be reviewed and approved by the Iraqi Presidium committee, President Jalal Talabani and his two Vice Presidents. If the deletion of the article is approved, Christians and other minorities face the danger of permanently losing their right to representation in the Regional Councils. The first elections for the Regional Councils are set for 31 January 2009. Several leaders, among them Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the United Nations (UN) special representative to Iraq, criticised the decision to remove Article 50 and urged President Talabani to reinstate it. In an interview Talabani assured the Iraqi Christian population that he would personally make sure that the article be restored. A UN envoy has promised to continue consultations with Iraqi political leaders in order to secure that the decision is reversed by 15 October, the date when nominations open for the Regional Council elections. Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Fund, has commented: This move by the Iraqi Parliament counteracts the efforts by the Iraqi President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to encourage Iraqi Christian refugees to return to their home country. Even though conditions in Iraq seem to be stabilising, the Christian community is still facing violence and persecution from Islamic extremists, especially in the city of Mosul. At the beginning of September two Christians there were kidnapped and killed, despite the payment of a $20,000 ransom to the kidnappers by one of the families. In 2007 many members of the Iraqi Christian community were killed, and many thousands have left the country since the invasion five years ago. (According to the NZ Herald 13 October 2008 since the writing of the above article, 1000 Christian families have fled their homes in the city of Mosul following the worst wave of violence against them in five years. The Chaldean Archbishop Louis Sako saidIraqs minority Christians were facing a campaign of liquidation.) Maldives non-Muslim Maldivians to lose their citizen rights as new constitution is ratified On 7 August the President of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, ratified a new constitution that is designed to bring key democratic reforms to the country, including a bill of rights. It paves the way for the first multi-party presidential elections, which take place on Wednesday 8 October. However, the new constitution is based on the common Maldivian assumption that any citizen of the Maldives is also automatically a Muslim. It states that a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives and that no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives. As a consequence of this clause, around 3,000 Maldivians will lose their citizenship, and it will also affect anyone who in the future converts from Islam. Under the previous constitution Maldivian Christians and other non-Muslims were excluded only from voting in elections. Now they will be stripped of citizen rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement and habeas corpus. This measure puts the Maldives among the worlds worst countries in regard to religious freedom. Growing legal and constitutional pressures on Christian minorities The news from Iraq and the Maldives are not the only legal and constitutional developments in recent months that are designed to impact negatively on Christian minorities. The constitutional changes in the Maldives in August, serious and shocking as they are, have now been overshadowed by the proposed new law in Iran, comments Dr Sookhdeo. (See our recent HYPERLINK "http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=424" \t "_blank"press release.) In the Maldives, Christians will lose their citizenship and rights, but in Iran those who leave Islam may lose their very lives. For the death penalty for apostasy by adult males is set to be incorporated into Iranian law. Furthermore, the new Iranian law, if passed, would open the way to secular courts in Iran prosecuting Iranian citizens living in other countries who are involved in evangelistic ministry in Iran. While the world applauds the fact that the Maldives are to hold their first ever multi-p arty presidential elections tomorrow, scant attention has been paid to the sudden removal of rights from 3,000 Maldivians who do not choose to be Muslims. Today many countries claim to be democratic but they do not see that human rights and religious liberty are essential parts of democracy, added Dr Sookhdeo.  Evoking Christian symbolism on civic occasions: I do not believe Australias Christian heritage should be veiled but that we should continue to be fair dinkum about the foundations of our current law and grateful for the freedom it allows people to be Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. Exclusively evoking Christian symbolism on civic occasions is not designed to marginalise other Australians it should be a reminder of a symbol that allows minorities to freedom of religion and human rights it should be a symbol of Australias rich cultural heritage. It is a reality in religious terms that Australias history is a Christian one. Would Israel hold up a Christian symbol on civic occasions, would Pakistan, would Turkey? Lets not forget that just as recent as 1974, secular and supposedly moderate Turkey invaded Cyprus, moved in Muslims, and ordered the Greeks to move out within 24 hours. Churches went up in flames or were converted into mosques. Seventy percent of its industry is now under Turkish control. Why is Australia so willing to sell its birthright and aid the effort to eliminate the Christian heritage? On Prayer Rooms: Perhaps there has been some studies done to the contrary, but I am not aware of any demand upon secular employers to provide prayer rooms prior to this demand from the Muslim community. Why do we submit to demands for separate space is this the spirit of integration we desire? Little Meccas are springing up everywhere. Even the universities who had multifaith prayer rooms are losing ground because the Muslim students are not satisfied with multifaith space they must have Muslim only prayer rooms. What if an employer is an atheist? Shouldnt freedom of religion extend to him/her as well to be free from religion if he/she so desires? In Australian culture the work place has been pretty much free from religion with people respecting others views but little to no manifestation of these at work. This arrangement seems to have been relatively successful up until now. What is valued at work is a good work ethic not a regular prayer routine. People of prayer can slip away to their car, take a walk or find an alternate space this has never been the responsibility of an employer and one should question whether it should be in our culture. Integration requires some adaptation not just on the part of non-Muslim Australia to accommodate an Islamic society within a democratic one. With defined boundaries everywhere, true integration is just a pipe dream. On employment: I have already noted that honesty, integrity and a good work ethic are Australian values. Having worked as a Recruitment Consultant I can honestly say these are not typical of all peoples. However, I shall quote from a recruitment industry publication to highlight the problem of making these assumptions when employing from other cultures. When interviewing, she (Sophie Robertson) says: "If people do not hold your gaze, do not assume they are hiding something. In Asian cultures, it is a mark of respect to lower your gaze rather than stare someone in the eyes all the time." "Recruiters in Sydney have been known to refer to some cultures as 'Supermen' cultures. These are the people who tell you they can do everything, yet when you send them to an assignment or permanent position, it transpires that they actually don't have the skills. It's because in their culture, it's rude to say they can't do something." (Of course in ours its rude to say we can do something when actually we cant many even go so far as to say this is fraudulent) At meetings: "When presenting a business card, do it with both hands if you're presenting it to an Asian. Likewise, receive it with both hands. Look at the card, make some comment. Do not write on the back as the card represents the person who gave it to you!" "Do not store your cards in your wallet in your back pocket. It's too close to that part of the body! Remember the card is a representation of a person. That also means you do not put their card in your back pocket." "If you're dealing with cultures that bow - for example, Japanese - do not bow unless you know how low to go. The bow is critical as it denotes your status in relation to the other person. If you don't bow enough, this may be taken as an insult." "If you are female, wait for the other person to extend their hand to you in greeting, because some cultures do not advocate the touching of females by males." (How does this work with gender equality in business?) "Understand that in some cultures a firm handshake is mandatory - for example, in the US - but in other cultures, such as Asian ones, a firm handshake can be construed as dominating." On time keeping "In Western cultures, we think of time as being linear and therefore manageable, while in other cultures - for example, the Pacific Islands and Middle East - time is considered synchronic and therefore not as important," Robertson says. "Relationships, on the other hand, are critical to these cultures. How many recruiters have had people not show up because their temp or candidate had to take their Mum or other relative somewhere? A typical reaction might be: 'Why can't they just get a cab?' But that's just not the way their culture is! Sometimes we also want to be with our loved ones but we know it's just not accepted in our culture to cancel a prior engagement to do so. "With some more understanding we can perhaps learn from each other and be less judgmental. We can become better recruiters, colleagues and bosses."  My response to the above is: Shouldnt we be educating our candidates and potential workforce about the importance of good time keeping and truthful communication after all, employers want a person who turns up for work when they say they will and whose yes means yes and no means no. If we truly value honesty, integrity and a good work ethic then those who come for employment should adopt these traits that contribute to Australia becoming great. Productivity and relationships are bound to suffer if we cannot establish clear expectations and communicate honestly. Having been involved in Permanent Recruitment for a number of years, it is clear that employers desire to employ staff that will not only bring the required skills and knowledge to the job, but also possess the right attitude and fit into the company culture. Just as there is a Job Description outlining measurable skills, there is also a description of the type of person a company believes will serve their need best. As they are paying the bills, I think this is fair. It is nave to think that a corporate culture can accommodate all of the religious diversity flooding the marketplace. The nature of all recruitment is discriminatory; whether its due to a lack of skill, experience or compatibility with the environment those that dont fit the Job description are discriminated against. I believe it is an infringement on the rights of employers to insist that they must accept all outward expressions of religion. A person is not free to demonstrate outwardly their love of sport by wearing sports attire into a corporate office, or their freedom to drink alcohol by arriving at work intoxicated etc. In corporate culture, dress codes are still given significant attention and if a person is not suitably attired to represent the company isnt that a legitimate reason for them not to represent the company? Permanent employment is not just about skills everyone wants a good fit. Anti-Semitism: There is no denying the rising tide of anti-Semitism among Muslim peoples. Even in Australia Fair I have heard the expression First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People which I believe is a well known saying of Yasser Arafats and pertains to the suppression of the Jews first, followed by the suppression of the Christians. I have personally been told by a Muslim friend in Melbourne that all Jews are liars because the Quran says so and I have heard another woman lament that Hitler didnt do a very good job. (Suggesting he didnt finish the job.) Walid Shoebat, a former self proclaimed Muslim terrorist says the following: I remember one occasion in Bethlehem when all the viewers in a jam packed theatre clapped their hands with joy as we watched the movie, 21 Days in Munich. The moment we saw the Palestinians throwing grenades into the helicopter and killing the Israeli athletes, everyone in the theatre - hundreds of viewers yelled Allahu akbar! (Allah is the greatest!) This is the slogan of joy used by Muslims for victorious events. This may seem far removed from Australia however I am sad to say I have witnessed a similar event in the Melbourne University. On this occasion hundreds were also jammed into the theatre, perhaps five hundred, and a visiting Palestinian Muslim speaker was relaying a dream he had where grenades were being thrown and Jews were being blown up. As he said this a young man yelled out with great gusto Allahu akbar! and what followed was a chorus of Allahu akbar with raised hands from the entire male audience. In all fairness, I felt that many of the female Muslim attendees segregated to the back of the lecture theatre were as disgusted as I was. We also witnessed the outpouring of joy and celebration by some Australian taxi drivers at the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have heard the conspiracy theories abounding within the Islamic community about America or the Jews being responsible for the Twin Towers in a plot to tarnish the name of Islam. I have heard Bin Laden referred to as the freedom fighter and John Howard labelled as the terrorist! And I have heard a Muslim ask a visiting lecturer in Q&A time if suicide bombing is lawful. He was obviously referring to Islamic law rather than Australian law. I therefore believe it is rather nave to suggest that we may not have a serious problem relating to attitudes toward both Jewish people and the West in general. SUMMARY: I believe there are some serious concerns within the Australian community -just as there are within the broader international community. This is an ideological struggle which veils itself in religion. Communism is recognised as a totalitarian ideology whereas Islam is viewed as a religion. I believe Australia should uphold the separation of church and state, and remove the Vilification Laws that have been used as a Blasphemy Law. I believe the Christian heritage which has served us all should be upheld and valued for the freedom it offers all. Weve all heard the old saying If you dont stand for something, youll fall for anything. There is a reality of Australias Christian heritage outworked often in an irreligious manner in mateship, courage, goodwill to others, honesty, integrity and general fruitfulness. Outward symbols of Christianity are not overbearing churches are a testimony to our history, the cross is to Christians a symbol of loving sacrifice. Openness and transparency are part and parcel of Australian culture. This should be required of all new citizens and include revealing ones face and preferring Australian law which offers many freedom and safety. I believe a conscious effort to slow the tide of sharia compliance is necessary. Even the most moderate of Muslims believe in the re-establishment of the Caliphate to rule the entire world by changing laws to adapt to Islamic sharia. Endorsing sharia in the food, hospitality, banking and finance sectors, as Australia has, is seen to pave the way for this. Having attended both moderate and fundamentalist Islamic conferences on the subject, I think its a little nave to believe this is a harmless religious requirement. Its all about the Islamisation of Australia complete with the introduction of more and more sharia compliance. Hizb Ut-Tahrir offered a three point methodology to impose the universal Islamic State - a how to on overthrowing democracy outlined in Sydney in 2007. [Name removed], who promote family values and peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims also promote Dawah Power - a tertiary level course in Melbourne and Western Sydney Universities on how to convert non-Muslims to Islamise Australia. I question how appropriate it is for these courses to be offered when both these universities receive government funding for their Islamic Departments. Isnt this government funded proselytising veiled as religious tolerance? Would we promote communism in the same way to our young people and expect to maintain a free democracy? To conclude I would like to relate my experience at the Melbourne University Colloquium titled Muslims in the West: Integration or Exclusion? Here too the virtues of the Islamic State were presented by academia. I listened with interest as the speaker explained what a dhimmi was. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim citizen - Jew or Christian - in an Islamic State who would rather retain their faith than convert to Islam and therefore is subject to a special tax -the jizya- for the privilege. It was presented in this forum that dhimmis lived under Islamic rule as equal citizens. This challenged me because I knew under Islamic law that the legal testimony of a dhimmi was not equal to the testimony of a Muslim and that there was a sorry list of other inequalities. Dr Mark Durie writes, The law required from dhimmis a humble demeanor, eyes lowered, a hurried pace. They had to give way to Muslims in the street, remain standing in their presence and keep silent, only speaking to them when given permission. They were forbidden to defend themselves if attacked, or to raise a hand against a Muslim on pain of having it amputated. Any criticism of the Quran or Islamic Law annulled the protection pact. In addition, the dhimmi was duty-bound to be grateful, since it was Islamic Law that spared his life. Noted author, Bat Yeor, documents the discriminatory clothing required to be worn by dhimmis commenting that in Yemen the Jews were bound by these regulations until 1950. Vestimentary regulations were laid down by the founders of the four (Islamic) juridical schools as early as the eighth century. They assigned to the dhimmi coarse cloth and specific colors for each religion and special belts (Zunnar). Nor did the legislator fail to give precise details as to headgear; pointed caps (qalansuwa) or turbans, made of particular fabrics and color. Christians had to shave the front of their heads above their foreheads. According to an-Nawawi, the dhimmi ()has to make himself distinguishable by a piece of yellow cloth and a belt over his clothing. If he enters a bath-house where there are Muslims, or if he undresses elsewhere in their presence, the infidel has to wear an iron or lead ring on his neck or else some other sign of servitude. Even without all this historical evidence of discrimination, the fact that groups are even categorized under law in religious terms, rather than one law for all citizens tends to highlight religious discrimination. This being the case, I raised my points to the speaker at this colloquium. When challenged, despite the presentation to the contrary, the speaker ultimately admitted that dhimmis were really subjugated second class citizens. This was a complete turn about under pressure. It occurred to me that academia had bought into Hizb Ut Tahrirs Stage Two to alter public opinion leaving academic integrity bleeding on the altar of integration. My fear is that the colloquium was utilising the doctrine of taqiyya, which as many know, is a doctrine of permissible deceit in order to further the cause of Islam. My concern is: are we buying into it?      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13  Dr Augusto Zimmerman, The Tragedy of Multiculturalism Summit Conference, Deakin University Burwood, Lecture 17/01/08  HYPERLINK "http://www.melbourne.catholic.or.au/eic/Regensburg.htm"http://www.melbourne.catholic.or.au/eic/Regensburg.htm  BF Email News Barnabas Fund Response to the Yale Center for Faith and Culture Statement: 28/01/08 HYPERLINK "http://www.barnabasfund.org"http://www.barnabasfund.org  Barnabas Fund Featured Article Response to Open Letter 28/11/07 HYPERLINK "http://www.barnabasfund.org"http://www.barnabasfund.org  Fraser, Rev G (ED) Democracy Down Under (Presbyterian Church of Victoria, 1997), 34-38  Dr David Mitchell, The Foundation of Australian Law Summit Conference, Deakin University Burwood Lecture 14/01/08 National Alliance of Christian Leaders The Constitution Past & Future by Rev Dr David Mitchell(1988) HYPERLINK "http://www.nacl.com.au"http://www.nacl.com.au  Dr Augusto Zimmerman, The Rule of Law Summit Conference, Deakin University Burwood Lecture 16/1/08  http://www.groundreport.com/articles.php?id=2834027  BF Email News 7 October 2008 HYPERLINK "http://www.barnabasfund.org"http://www.barnabasfund.org  Stanley Cohen, Professor of Criminology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Law and Social Enquiry, vol.20, no.1, winter, 1995, pp.7, 50.  Recruiter Daily 1/10/08 HYPERLINK "http://www.recruiterdaily.com.au"www.recruiterdaily.com.au Ask an expert: How can I be more aware of cultural differences?  Walid Shoebat with Joel Richardson, Gods War On Terror, Top Executive Media, United States 2008, 474  Durie, Dr Mark The Dhimmitude of the West Centre for Islamic Studies Newsletter, Summer 2002: LBC Centre for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Theological Studies.  Yeor, Bat Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (Lancaster, UK: Bat Yeor, 2002), 91 (*4PO ^   p ""]//00 344:6;677<<<<<<UAVADGGIKLL7UmUWW%[&[)[*[B[ڸڱڱڱڱڟڟjh4hTS6Uh4hTS56h4hTS6 h<}hTSjh/hTSU h/hTShf\hTS6hA}>hTS6hXhTSH*hAhTS56hTS hS=hTSh(3hTS5CJH*aJh(3hTS5CJaJ034PP ^ p Ts>z"""""~#&*]//0 34798<(=gd/gdUw(=2??@WA}BDGGHILMOP4SW(XoY)[*[;_a>ȵ-)}"<}gd/B[\\b]c]^O^X^f^n^l^m_m`moqpq3r5r zN{O{{{&'7²²{²m²eeWehTS0JCJOJQJaJjhTSUhTS0JB*OJQJphDDD%h(3hTSB*CJOJQJaJphDDDhTSB*CJOJQJaJphDDD'hTS0J56B*OJQJ\]phDDDhTSB*CJOJQJaJphDDDhTSB*OJQJphDDDjhTS0JUh8FhTS56h}"hTS6jh}"hTSUhTS h}"hTS!qpq5r zO{{'9:;kʼn+: dgdqgd}"gd-)\$gd-)789;kxGHʼn+:ђҒVWcշՠveUB$hqhTSCJOJQJaJnH tH hTSCJOJQJaJnH tH !hTS6CJOJQJaJnH tH *hqhTS56CJOJQJaJnH tH 'hqhTS6CJOJQJaJnH tH -hqhTS56CJOJQJ\aJnH tH jhTS0JUh[hTS5h(3hTS5CJaJhTShTSB*CJOJQJaJphDDD,jhTS0JB*CJOJQJUaJphDDDҒWeYJ@ dgdqddd[$\$gdqS & FdddEƀirF[$\$gdqR & FddEƀirF[$gdqe^8[R & FddEƀirF[$gdqR & FddEƀirF[$gdq80і[Jdd[$^gd}R & FddEƀirF[$gdqR & FddEƀirF[$gdqЖіϗkoqrע9GhdzmiaZUiI>i6iUh(3hTS6h(3hTSCJaJh(3hTS5CJaJ hTS6 h~hTSh~hTS6hTS4jhqhTS0J6CJOJQJUaJnH tH -hqhTS56CJOJQJ\aJnH tH 'hqhTS6CJOJQJaJnH tH 'h}hTS5CJOJQJaJnH tH hTSCJOJQJaJnH tH $hTS56CJOJQJaJnH tH *h}hTS56CJOJQJaJnH tH >?[ע4h}~1ogd gd gdqS & FdddEƀirF[$\$gdq~KYT[!MWXYq%.7@ôôˬh mHnHuh~jh~UhYPjhYPUjh hTS0J6Uh hTS6 h hTSh hTS5CJaJhhTS5CJaJhTS hTS6jhTS0J6U9o5Y1Z= fgd<}gd/$a$ dgd/gd YZ[\]2=>ef "7efgh{ABde{|}~8ززh5h~0JmH sH hOh~6mH sH h?Lh~0JmH sH jh~Uh~6mH sH h~mH sH h~jh~0JUFA~gd gd ddd@&[$\$gdqgd}"gd<} 89`a|}~ !"NOhij%@ķĥޜޜޜ h hTShYPhA0h~mH sH h~6mH sH "hqh~6OJQJ\nH tH h~6CJaJmH sH h}h~6CJaJmH sH jh~0JUh~mH sH hh~0JmH sH h~jh~U.61hP:p}. A!"#$% N@N UwNormal dCJPJ_HaJmH sH tH d@"d -) Heading 2ddd@&[$\$5CJ$OJPJQJ\aJ$tH d@2d -) Heading 3ddd@&[$\$5CJOJPJQJ\aJtH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List F+@F / Endnote Text dCJaJRR /Endnote Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJB*@B /Endnote ReferenceH*^J:U@!: / Hyperlink>*B*^JphZO1Z -)Heading 2 Char&5CJ$OJQJ\^JaJ$mHsHtH ZOAZ -)Heading 3 Char&5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsHtH `^@R` -) Normal (Web)ddd[$\$CJOJPJQJaJtH 2X@a2 -)Emphasis 6]^J.W@q. -)Strong 5\^J>> (3Header B#d22 (3 Header Char^J> @> (3Footer B#d2O2 (3 Footer Char^JH@H - Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ,:./U9O%SbU_e7}GWw*6#18;34PP^pT s >z~"]''( +,/184(52778W9}:<??@ADEGH4KO(PoQ)S*S;WY>[s]fgqhi5j rOssw'x9}:};}k}Ł+:ҊWe^80ю>?[ך4h}~1o5Y1ºZٻ= fڽA~000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(00g00i0i00Os00w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w 0w 0w0w0w 0w 0w 0w 0w0w 0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0w0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0834P~1ú0k;XXXXXX8@0(  B S  ?ccdcdecfcgc$hcdicjckc$lcmcncTocpcqcrcTsctcucvcTwcxcyczcT{c|c}c~cTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTccccTcccccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccccDccc cD c c c cD c c c cD c c c cD c c c cD c c ccDccc cD c c c cDclccc,clccc,    6 6 88B""8,8,B,--%0v0`6`6i6}=}=@@>BBBDDEE\I\IlIwJJJ3O3OOOOOOOPVV"Y"Y\>___AcAcgdgdJh^hkhkhiijjBppprrOsOsss8u8uuuuww5xBxBxxbyby zMzMz6{{{{{|}|}TT rPP^^ʔʔff2||m##ff;;٬//..5       !"#$%&')(*+,-./0123546789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~% % < < ALL++A,L,L,--+0|0g6n6n6==@@EBBBDDEEhIIIJJJ?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplaceB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState IOah { p v QW8> !%!b$g$n$s$ &&,, , ,8,A, --?.G.22225555$6,6F6L66637;777ZD`DKK1V7VVVyWWWW,X2XXXBYHY'Z,Z]ZbZq_w_aabb9fAfffhhkkkkmm m&mmmmm o(ossssssssuy}y-}5}+5 !(ՠ۠ܠbh%+T`TY ȱKQP\ 28õȵ"(.4ܸquvxy%,ºú.4@GȽ˾Ҿ)3 00@@}CCaDgD ccddeehhi3j7;ºú!gm33333333333333333yzWeºúA~yyyzKLMPQYºú\׻=Ƽ A|8}!iW-lzkIsMV^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(W-lIsv&0,a<Iavo989/AM]t{ %F3z  )@U`cAggtil1 *)VEY,^0A(dj+!.2SPk/%YIN)u,07;=^xd?hOi # \$ HG G *P pd u Ox u. : ? LE ?f   M uY { # 9& Z( ; PW f +k    % ' N S t RXH]:dh,5AHM^[{sO(UZ_ %EZ,_L{Aao(e4?2BgkiH09} N 0,1UZbrcmW~<!7NIkx %2M -8C QLSTmoBEbstm#(?DI2Uk7m`dWizW w1>?Z}g ]%`JOjQXUayYhct M+,K<KPYrx! jm !!}.!C!_!m!N"g"a@"Z"}"C#=$n$\z$w%#;%k%&)&'&k&}&%'='G'Q'R(e=(O(Ej(Mn()*)0)@)i)1n)'*K]* z*++++1+d+i+j+,,",N%,.,A,o,},-/_-d-..8.U.e.Of.K@/U/Z/b^/^/\_/r/v/w/A0 0#%0@80A0C0W0^0b0$e0 1 11%1j91@1@1'v1lx1y22`22i92G2{23!3(3)3-/3_3sb34:4>4V]4q5 5 5?5WX5 6U6(6*6g/6K6/V6x66 7777qJ7g78/8r<8S>8D8S8m8% 9/:9K9U9EV9Fn9p9 ::T;^;9`;m;~;;<<x/<LV<r<"z<S=oM=>>>C>a>i>Dj>A}>??#?@?K?#u?"&@c@x@8A AqAMAdAnAwAj{A BBB0B=:B@BRBS^B_BaB}BC#C^'CI,C9CXCcC@dCfoClD.DeDiD*{DEEEE!EFF8FpbF@oFG& G/3G64GtG,H4HU;HOHcb c0c4c:c Wc`cjckchd"d3)d/DdQd}Xdeded)eAe Pe3ceZeepefff$f=Gfqfwfxfgfgk(gr7g@g Jg&`gpgh hJ!h"hFh8Yhi)iYiBiiPj&jdTjkjwjwjPk= kkK k 3k Bk!Kk_jkwrkll^)lKlRlalMplulvl0~lmmBm6mCrMrortr8}rOszTs tthLtvft_gtExdExAy yay24yZKylRy _ybygyzQz]zozpz {J{\{c{h|F|R|o|D}+0}UF}EK})\}c}^o}o}v}T~g)~3~)g~q~/&$2AX|-IWeus F h"*MOh%u,;qIhs%1L64w:{|Q F9x3029'P[{}4DMGP\\iw ~ !>(+`n4Bj A9ENR$ !B|~;2&51v /47k{vz {}&0=Akk{  'c+;biOc( >FKQwXiq {{e%g5oKj^qE-nBsNPrltS',6SW1Q3Rvwz<<Q\_L%//KZs  ~"]*Y5Y -<9>pFF``gk,0z6e %84^pk*=dK?LQX`m|*y,6@r14_DZsapGWNf$y> Uj>GHPHII^ 3L#c2v<}(-3Yo_~ahEq- 9YYqvx#zr *k;?gCcUi+~9"O$_@7JTSVfpRrvT$;>O@G4Yx%,%TPXfmLab!} H=ElU *l1#6W][]hpv} ~; "QtQz!T.$9^Pgghj m'JRRSi-+#L1sFfOOQ^rrz(Ubcj/ [weaqwzT"?5?R'ZhZp_xK11<vTWix?Y-F9rdm*}0.46:2O%^ `?NfoptS 3~D[Eo>4-!AQ"n ~6/=V[\ahivv +4BdiiRp*}Ta~} rY[Xj{)]_LfjoaCQd%ix}T~5 D.^|B+]/^ll3='8(=Tq}Rg.2@LEEc"hAFI]]jop|`'<Gr5~+h<k}F|DwC&3:FNnXw'yrR37:(= M _kdln8%u$&T-DLTl<ensf.'9CHZ]4!AmGGaR#$)Ipduuuu{x'<~?r`f!'#<gH[lwQ&-]quu4o>Nb˭#+$lr<%U6_ LIUciGoYPYav~+-x{|c} w#%'%fuwf;QZ^p~+ %&sALsS@KO/aZ$+V^_cj@,l:;P#-i2Z>QO-)9JlnuD4\6"88e&i)FB)G'v ?:B~~gmSKcvXz@8py9~/=SdCY%q/:B)KU ,$JS`-{Q]CdiJO!r=_& c'Ode i)1b3X(C\kkr! 9w%> @SbZ\m{~mV@~\I]hkv}k)36!C>O^d #!'1dfoZ983If4lYrw**8==YZz %9 <RoTf4g|nw#\70ROYB|}}ArWAXne*#45tn,NYP_UZU!1@d-hm %GjqV}@2222`@UnknowndawcaGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana7&{ @Calibri5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"hKfKf$k&ٞ_Rٞ_R!4dXX2HX $PUw22FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN THE 21ST CENTURYYour User NameCassandra Dawes  Oh+'0 , DP p |  4FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN THE 21ST CENTURYYour User Name Normal.dotCassandra Dawes2Microsoft Office Word@G@ ,@T@Tٞ՜.+,D՜.+,` hp|  R_X' 3FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF IN THE 21ST CENTURY Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA*MHhttp://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=424mP^"http://www.recruiterdaily.com.au/mW@ http://www.barnabasfund.org/m2< http://www.nacl.com.au/mW@http://www.barnabasfund.org/mW@http://www.barnabasfund.org/mgs7http://www.melbourne.catholic.or.au/eic/Regensburg.htmm  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyz{|}~Root Entry F7bTData x1TablegWordDocument8SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q