ࡱ> %` 0bjbj"x"x <@@*TTTTTTTTsss8t$*tLTDtttttuuu$_hhTuuTTttH>>>TtTt>>>.bTTtvt { \sT@02/ /\/Tu\{}uuu&uuuTTTr$TTTrTTTTTTTTT Submission to the HREOC Discussion Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century in Australia 20 October 2008 Introduction Implicit in every aspect of the Discussion Paper is the assumption that Organised Religion is an inevitable, natural and desirable part of a modern secular democratic society. However, there is nowhere any justification for this assumption. It is a great pity that Australia has not had a public debate about Organised Religion, to answer questions such as: Why is it deemed unfair to expect religions to justify their existence? Why is there no audit of their claims to moral superiority and spiritual enrichment? Why are religions not accountable for the public money they absorb? This Discussion Paper makes no distinction between individual faith/belief, and Organised Religion but there is a world of difference. The Atheist Foundation of Australia supports every adults right to choose what to believe and have faith in, as long as they dont impose their beliefs and faiths on others; but it has serious qualms about political and media deference given to Organised Religion. Organised Religion codifies and controls the set of beliefs and ceremonies its adherents use to worship their god or gods. This removes individual responsibility and transfers power to non-democratically appointed representatives of that god. Over the last two thousand years the big three monotheistic religious sects; Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been organising themselves, recruiting followers, quelling dissent, building vast structures in which to worship their gods, refining rituals, and aligning themselves with temporal power so that today they are powerful multinational businesses that use their enormous wealth to influence governments. As the primary purpose of Organised Religion is power and influence, it is no accident that the citizens of every society ruled by religion now and in the past have lived in fear and misery, burdened by inequality, corruption, and the cruel persecution of minorities. Despite claims that modern Organised Religions have changed, there is little evidence to support this. Most still ignore scientific advance when it suits them, and persecute minorities if it gains them supporters. All religions are constantly hounding governments to pass laws that support their dogma and beliefs, which suggests they have little respect for individuality or democracy. Humanity had to wait until the twentieth century for individual human rights and freedoms, but these only arrived in lands ruled by democratically elected, secular governments! And always these liberating laws received strong opposition from Organised Religions. No one disputes that there are many thousands of generous, caring, good people attached to religions, but it is the natural generosity of these people that is the motivation, not religion. Research by Marc Hauser, published as, Moral Minds indicates that morality is hardwired into our brains and separate from religion. Jesse Bering [Institute of Cognition and Culture, Queens College, Belfast UK.] suggests that the fear of a god looking over ones shoulder can also motivate some people to behave according to their innate moral hardwiring. Greg Pauls study in the Journal of Religion and Society discovered that the more a society embraces religiosity, the lower the morals. Commonsense tells us that if being religious made people good, there would be no evil believers. Australasia, North America and Western Europe remain the only places where human rights are respected and enforced by law. Unfortunately, recent legislation intended to secure our safety from religious terrorism, shows how easily these rights can be eroded. It is reasonable to conclude that unless Organised Religions are rendered politically powerless, human society will return to the dark ages as religion and tyrants support each other in their quest for earthly power. It is time for governments to realise the potential social dangers posed by resurgent religiosity, and to legislate that religious organisations are considered to be clubs, like needlework and karate clubs. People join religious clubs for many reasons; social activities, companionship, a need to believe in a supernatural godfather, fear of life... but this is no reason for religions to receive more favourable treatment than any other club, and no reason for the business enterprises of religion to receive more favourable treatment than the commercial enterprises of other organizations. Researchers: We suggest that because the researchers: Desmond Cahill, Gary Bouma, and Dr Hass Dellal, appear to be religious men, they are not disinterested participants in this discussion. The absence of a secular researcher undermines the credibility of this exercise. 1: Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief and the recommendations in the 1998 HREOC Report. Recommendation 2.5 states: For the purposes of the Religious Freedom Act, religion and belief should be given a wide meaning, covering the broad spectrum of personal convictions and matters of conscience. It should include theistic, non-theistic and Atheistic beliefs. While it is heartening that non-theism and Atheism get a mention, it is essential for everyone involved to understand that in the context of supernatural phenomena, there is no such thing as Atheist belief. The writers of this report should have been as considerate of the feelings of Atheists as they have been of believers in supernatural phenomena, and checked their facts. Atheists simply accept that there's no valid scientific evidence for the existence of supernatural gods or other phenomena. If it is the intention of this enquiry to ensure that all Australians enjoy freedom of thought without discrimination and the imposition of arbitrarily imposed religious moral edicts, then the title of this enquiry should reflect this. An alternative could be: Freedom of belief and unbelief in the 21st century. A glaring omission is an explicit statement of the right to unbelief without censure. 2: Religion and the State the Constitution, roles and responsibilities It is important to note that Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution does not direct the state to fund, or in any other way support any religion. If that had been intended, we can be sure the writers of the Constitution would have made such intentions clear. Therefore, it must be considered unconstitutional for any Australian government to support any religion through subsidies, handouts, donations, tax relief, provision of chaplains, religious instruction in schools, or any other means. Is section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act an adequate protection of freedom of religion and belief? It is adequate for followers of a religion, but it offers no protection to those who have no belief in supernatural gods. How should the Australian Government protect freedom of religion and belief? Current laws regarding freedom of association, thought and speech, as well as laws condemning vilification, libel and incitement to violence, are sufficient to protect the freedom to believe, or not believe, in supernatural phenomena. Making laws specifically to protect religions would be as silly as making specific laws to protect peoples right to join sports clubs, bridge clubs or philosophical societies. Religious adherents are voluntary members of their church in the same way as members of a yacht club. They deserve the same treatment as all other Australians, but have no right to expect preferential treatment. Religion must never be confused with race. People have no choice in the matter of race [nor sexual orientation] therefore special legislation is essential in those cases to protect their rights and welfare. When considering the separation of religion and state, are there any issues that presently concern you? Organised Religions are commercial enterprises employing large numbers of people and making billions of dollars profit every year, at times competing unfairly with non-religious businesses. It is intolerable that their finances should not be audited, their profits untaxed, and they should receive handouts from the public purse. Only the genuinely charitable wings of a religion should be free of taxation after passing the same stringent tests as all other charities to prove their status. It beggars belief that religions continue to demand their right to drain the public purse. Do religious or faith-based groups have undue influence over government? Yes. [i] Religions are not democratic institutions; therefore, religious people do not place the same value on individual rights and freedoms as their secular fellow citizens. A secular democracy is seen by Organised Religion as a threat to their beliefs because it allows people to do things of which they disapprove such as terminate a pregnancy or wear bikinis at the beach. Religions undermine democracy because followers of religions obey their priests, imams, ministers... having more faith in their opinions than their own. That means they frequently block vote at elections. We are all aware of political pandering to the religious vote. Unfortunately, Australia does not have proportional representation, and our preferential system permits religion-based block voting to unfairly influence the outcome of elections in marginal seats. [ii] When considering moral issues, governments tend to consult religious leaders. This is inappropriate on two counts: [a] Because no current religious belief has contributed anything of value to the universal moral codes hard-wired into the human brains that have ensured human survival for over two hundred thousand years. [b] Historically, all religions have initially opposed every law that increased individual rights and freedoms such as: -universal suffrage; equality for women; the abolition of slavery; the decriminalisation of homosexuality, legal abortion, voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill. [iii] Religious leaders naturally demand laws that suit their dogma, instead of laws that reflect scientific knowledge and are acceptable to everyone; for example: family planning. Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief? If it specifically included the right to scepticism, nonbelief and Atheism. Roles and responsibilities What are the roles, rights and responsibilities of religious, spiritual and civil society (including secular) organisations in implementing the commitment to freedom of religion and belief? Every citizen has a duty to uphold laws regarding vilification and discrimination, without exception. b) How should this be managed? It begins in infancy. Parents must not indoctrinate their children with notions of superiority because of religion, nor teach them that other people and their beliefs [or lack thereof] are inferior. This duty extends to schools and the wider community. Schools that cater for only one religious group are inherently divisive and inculcate an unwarranted sense of superiority. How can these organisations model a cooperative approach in responding to issues of freedom of religion and belief? By working with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. How well established and comprehensive is the commitment to interfaith understanding and inclusion in Australia at present and where should it go from here? Despite the occasional interfaith gathering of leaders, tolerance of other beliefs appears to be deteriorating as a result of each religion and sect setting up its own schools and religious instruction centres that place themselves at the centre of what is right the unstated corollary of which is; all others must be wrong. This is inherently divisive. Rather than encouraging inclusion and equality, the governments determination to financially support the creation of ever more religious schools as an alternative to secular state education, is undermining a century of progress in religious tolerance. How should we understand the changing role and face of religion, nationally and internationally? The problems facing humans are becoming insurmountable and stem in great part from religions insistence that there must be no limit to human population growth. The quality of life experienced by most of the worlds people is bleak, and with water and food shortages, climate change, overcrowding and all the other current ills, humans will soon be fighting for food and shelter. This is fertile ground for religions, because religions promise salvation, a better life after death, and supernatural solutions in return for power and privilege. With our freedoms curtailed in the name of security from religious terrorism, and democracy dismantled by the block voting power of religions, we will see a return to the dark age of religious dictatorships, persecutions, sacrifices and other horrors. But this time there will be no escape. Modern communications will ensure that another Enlightenment will never occur. There will be an eternity of fear and repression, because that is, and always has been, the nature of religious government. 3: Religion and the State -practice and expression What are some consequences of the emergence of faith-based services as major government service delivery agencies? Instead of secular, even-handed distribution of services by professionally trained staff, answerable to the government and ultimately the general citizenry, many religious agencies employ untrained people who are answerable to their religious supervisor instead of a disinterested authority. Women seeking termination of pregnancies are sometimes sent to faith-based counselling services that place undue and unwanted pressure on vulnerable women not to proceed with the termination. There is anecdotal evidence that some faith-based government funded charities are refusing services to same-sex-oriented people. As there appears to be no requirement for religious service providers to account for their finances, there is scope for corruption in the administration of these services. People who do not believe in supernatural phenomena feel very uncomfortable when assisted by, or dealing with people who not only believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient superman in the sky, but feel obliged to convert rational thinkers to their cause and sometimes punish them by withholding assistance. Many Atheists and other independent-minded people would prefer no assistance, rather than being subjected to religious quizzing and forced prayers. Some faith-based charities will not employ those not adhering to their beliefs. To the countrys discredit, this discrimination is perfectly legal. How should government accommodate the needs of faith groups in addressing issues such as religion and education, faith schools, the building of places of worship, religious holy days, religious symbols and religious dress practices? [1]Religion and Education: Last century Australian governments provided compulsory, free, secular education in a successful bid to heal divisions between Catholics and Protestants. That lesson has been forgotten and the state now sponsors religious schools where students are indoctrinated with the belief that their religion is the one true faith and all others are wrong. Religion is inherently divisive, so the ultimate result will be the disintegration of society into warring sects, and the creation of faith-based ghettoes. Parents indoctrinate their children with their religion, which is regrettable but normal. However, it is grossly unfair to then send the child to a school that reinforces this early indoctrination. How will the child mature into an adult able use his/her reason to choose what to think or how to live, if from infancy they have been exposed to only one belief system that possibly rejects scientific reason? Any school that accepts even one dollar of state aid should then be bound by all the rules that apply to state schools. They should not reject staff or pupils who have no faith or the wrong one. There should be no religious instruction during school hours, and no compulsion to attend religious instruction or ceremonies after school. The school should be obliged to accept every pupil that requests entry, and must deal with low achievers and problem students themselves not dump them back on the state system. There must be no religious indoctrination or religious education in state schools. Instead, a proper curriculum that includes the history of philosophy and beliefs should be drawn up, with no emphasis placed on any one set of ideas or beliefs. Only a well-informed person is able to make intelligent choices in life. The Atheist Foundation of Australia receives countless letters from parents dismayed by the fact that their children are more or less forced to submit to religious indoctrination in state schools. The fact that the state sponsored chaplains are ill trained and usually evangelicals, adds insult to injury. [2] Building religious places of worship. Religions should receive no more assistance than any other club in the constructing or maintenance of their meeting places, and they must abide by the same building codes and town planning requirements as every other commercial construction. There is no excuse for allowing a religion to construct a vast building in a residential area, where a warehouse, for example, would be prohibited. In fact, theres more reason to exclude it because it is the weekends that will be most disturbed by all the coming and going to religious services. [3] Religious holy days, religious symbols and dress codes. If the holy days fall on a public holiday then theres no problem, if not, then it is up to the employer to grant permission for absence, or not. It is not the duty of the state to grant a holiday to everyone who seeks a day off to pursue their belief in supernatural gods. Religious symbols should not be visible. There is no reason to advertise ones faith; it eventually leads to religious intolerance, sectarian problems and social disharmony. Religious dress if deliberately worn to proclaim a particular religious adherence is not a good idea. Laws enacted by France to maintain the secularity of the state seem a good way to go. 4: Security issues in the aftermath of September the 11th 2001. How should the Government balance physical security and civil liberties? Our civil liberties derive from the writings of a few great thinkers in the eighteenth century whose ideas sparked the French revolution and were fundamental in the writing of the Constitution of the U.S.A. the most enlightened constitution ever written to protect the citizenry from tyrants, both secular and religious. They understood that individual liberty and freedom cannot exist while religion holds minds in thrall as we see in so many countries today where religion is fomenting and funding wars and violent acts. Any diluting of the hard won liberties Australians enjoy is a victory for religion all religions and a giant step back to the dark ages of ignorance and superstition. Consider and comment on the relationship between law and religious or faith based communities, and issues such as legal literacy, civil liberties, dissemination of law to new immigrant communities, and the role and conduct of judiciary, courts and police. All these things are a problem of language only; therefore fluent, competent, sensitive translators should be provided and the laws explained to immigrants. Our laws are, for the most part, just and fair to individuals regardless of race or creed, deliberately not reflecting any particular religious dogma. The Law is above both religion and politics and must remain so. To make exceptions because an accused believes in a different god who demands something unlawful, makes an ass of the law and brings it into disrepute with everyone. Is there religious radicalism and political extremism in Australia? Yes... a few obvious examples... [1] The right to lifers who want to make abortions illegal for everyone. [2] the religions and cults that want to make homosexuality illegal and who rail against them from pulpits. [3] The Exclusive Brethren who refuse to vote, live in ghettoes, and spend vast sums trying to influence the results of elections in favour of their dogma. [4] Muslims who force women to cover their bodies, heads and faces in public. [5] All religions have their extremists, such as the extreme homophobia of [name removed], and [name removed] misogyny... If so, what are the risks to Australia? If the extremists refuse to take notice of reason and science, then all society suffers. If extremists dont tone down their rhetoric, then hot-headed young men and women will soon be taking the law into their own hands, as they already do in regard to homosexuality and [in the U.S.A.] abortion, and start murdering those who offend their faith. From there it is a short step to acts of gross public harm. Can you provide any examples of social exclusion in regard to religion? Atheist teachers can't be employed in religious schools and other organisations. Scouts are forced to believe in supernatural creatures and pray, if they want to join. Gays are refused communion in Roman Catholic churches. Many educational institutions from infants to universities are hotbeds of homophobia. Some same-sex-oriented students are bullied and hounded by teachers and other pupils making their lives such a misery they leave school without proper education, becoming social and financial burdens to themselves and society. Religious interference has made prostitution a dangerous and socially unacceptable occupation. How and why do issues of social exclusion develop? They develop as a logical result of the notion that: The religion of their parents is the Truth. That religious laws are immutable and god-given; therefore perfect. That all other gods and forms of worship are wrong. That the most evil thing anyone can do is to not believe in their particular invisible superman in the sky. That unbelievers, infidels, pagans, Atheists... are inferior and evil. There is also the fear that the religion in which they have invested their lives may not be quite as perfect as they believed. The shame of admitting they'd made a mistake would be too great to bear, so they shoot the messenger. 5. The interface of religious, political and cultural aspirations How would you describe the interface between religion and politics and cultural aspirations in contemporary Australia? Religions still have too much influence on Australian governments and are consulted on issues over which they have no expertise, such as questions of conscience and personal choice. Examples: The overturning of legislation giving terminally ill patients the right to choose to end their lives with dignity instead of rotting away in nursing homes. Banning the Exit publication, The Peaceful Pill Handbook. The refusal to give legal status to same sex couples. The difficulties faced by women desiring pregnancy terminations. Preferring to support financially religious charitable organisations rather than secular charities such as Twenty 10 Gay and Lesbian Youth Services for Pathways to Independence. What issues does this include? Cultural and religious festivals should be self-funding. The ultimate obscenity recently was the N.S.W. government changing laws and spending millions of taxpayer dollars on hosting the popes visit. The Vatican Bank could buy and sell Australia, yet Australian taxpayers funded that tiny dictatorships trade mission! How should government manage tensions that develop between aspirations? By enforcing existing laws. Stop treating religion as a special case. Organised Religions are just multinational businesses with club facilities for members. How do you perceive gender in faith communities? The subjugation of women in both Christian and Muslim religions is shameful. That so many Muslim women accept their lowly status, choose to cover themselves and take orders unquestioningly from men, is not a sign of sanctity, it is a testament to the power of infant indoctrination. Despite indisputable scientific evidence to prove that sexual orientation is decided in the womb, and humans have as much say over their eye colour as their sexual orientation, most religions still teach that homosexuality is a sinful choice. The direct results of this are: Hundreds of families destroyed because parent reject their same-sex-oriented sons and daughters, sending them onto the streets to survive as best they can, often with horrific consequences such as prostitution, drug abuse, violence and suicide. A disproportionate number of youth suicides are gays whose lives have been rendered intolerable at home, at school, and on the street because of vilification that has its origins in religion. There is only one ultimate source of homophobia in society, and that is religion, and yet religions are granted the right to discriminate, persecute and vilify same-sex-oriented people so that every year in Australia anecdotal evidence suggests there are thousands of hate crimes, bashings and mutilations of gays, as well as a dozen murders. [Accurate statistics are unavailable as the sexual orientation of victims is not usually recorded.] Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities? No. most religions treat women as inferior. Religions should not be above the Law or treated differently by the Law, or given exemptions from any law. The laws of the land must apply equally to every citizen regardless of position or power. If individuals or organisations break a law then they must reap the punishment. What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia? Australian laws specifically state that women are to be treated the same as men, so religions must be forced to do that. Citizenship and Australian values have emerged as central issues, how do you balance integration and cultural preservation? It is essential to distinguish between culture and religion. Religion all too frequently dresses itself up as culture to escape censure for inhuman or illegal behaviour. If someones culture is threatened by Australian laws, then that aspect of the culture is probably bad and should be banned anyway. The rule of law is paramount if we wish to maintain a stable and fair society. What are reasonable expectations to have of citizens civic responsibility, rights, participation and knowledge? It is reasonable to expect every citizen to know their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Whether they choose to participate is up to them. Is there a role for religious voices, alongside others in the policy debates of the nation? So many people claim to follow a religion that it would be ridiculous to disallow their opinions in debates. However, there is no place for religious dogma in any government policy or laws. Laws are for the well-being of everyone, regardless of belief or unbelief. That is why it is wrong to ban abortions. The law does not force religious people to terminate pregnancies, but neither should it force women to keep unwanted foetuses. The fact that religious people believe the zygote formed by a sperm and an ovum is a complete human, is as irrelevant as the belief of those who continue to insist that the universe is only 6000 years old, or that diseases and storms are punishment from their god... We wouldnt make laws based on that notion, so why do it on other equally unscientific beliefs? Technology and its implications How have the new technologies affected the practice and dissemination of religious and faith communities? Religious groups bombard politicians with emails about issues they want legislation on, because they know that in a democracy, Representatives sometimes listen to the loudest voices rather than reason. Religious websites, expertly designed, cleverly spread their messages, from support for creationism to hatred of gays and denouncement of other religions. Influenced by religions, governments are considering banning certain websites. Religious TV is used, especially by the evangelists, to disseminate their dogma and tell adherents how to vote. What issues are posed by new religions and spiritualities using new technologies? The spreading of lies and half-truths about social issues. There are anti-Jewish websites, hate Atheism pages; anti-Muslim sites... These are not monitored and are a source of hatred and dissent and have been used to organise rallies. What impact do the media have on the free practice of religion in Australia and the balanced portrayal of religious beliefs and practice? The media are favourably disposed towards religious belief. Unfortunately, they are frightened by anything that criticises religion and it is very difficult to get newspapers to publish Atheist Foundation of Australia press releases and letters to the editor that are critical of religion. In TV interviews and news clips there is a culture of Do not ask the hard questions; Dont ask religious speakers to justify their statements and opinions; Never make fun of or criticise religion; Dont let an Atheist speak for long enough to sound reasonable; Never question the logic or rationality of religious statements and dogma... Are there religious or moral implications in the development of new technologies such as the internet and or mobile phones, especially in regard to religious vilification and hatred? Yes... but these things should be covered by libel laws and general anti-vilification laws, and laws prohibiting incitement to violence. There is no reason to treat religion as a special case, any more than there should be special laws to prevent people vilifying gun clubs or conservationist societies, or bridge clubs. 7: Religion, cultural expression and human rights In a country as multicultural as Australia, freedoms of cultural expression, religious expression and human rights need ongoing exploration. This section is about gaining a deeper understanding of how effective Australias current human rights framework is, and if tensions between human rights, religious expression and cultural expression are of concern. Questions to consider include: How is diverse sexuality perceived within faith communities? Usually, faith communities foster antagonism towards people who are different leading to hate crimes; and they inculcate deep feelings of guilt in the ones who are different, leading to low self-esteem, self-harm and occasionally suicide. How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities? By accepting scientific proof that sexual orientation is determined in the womb and is as unchangeable as eye colour. Religions have finally accepted that the world is not flat and at the centre of the universe, why can't they understand the diversity of sexuality enjoyed by all higher animals? Should religious organisations (including religious schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity? Never! There is absolutely no basis in any research scientific or social to indicate that same-sex-oriented people and trans-genders are different from, or inferior to heterosexual people. Indeed, in the case of paedophilia, statistically a child is safer with a homosexual adult than with a heterosexual. Interestingly, a small English study a few years ago reported in The New Scientist, concluded that gay male couples made the best parents. Do you consider environmental concern to be an influence shaping spiritualities and value systems? All the effective environmental groups both national and international are non religious. The rise in so-called earth religions such as Wicca, are as full of vapid notions as supernatural cults like Christianity and Islam. Far from being part of the solution to humanitys dire predicament, religions are a large part of the problem because they insist there can never be too many humans, and are doing all they can to prevent any reduction in human numbers. There is no evidence that any sect of any mainstream religion has the slightest understanding of the current ecological crisis, or that they even care enough to do anything except mouth platitudes. (Cardinal Pell is in open deep denial concerning global warming.) Are there religious groups, practices and beliefs that you think are of concern to Australians? The immoral acceptance of tax breaks, enabling religious enterprises to make billions of dollars tax-free profit; thus competing unfairly with tax paying enterprises. The virtual monopoly of welfare services by tax funded religious organisations. Should these be subjected to legislative control? Yes. Every religious enterprise no matter how small, from priests and ministers wages to the profits of large companies such as Sanitarium, through to rental accommodation, retirement homes, hospitals, and profits made from welfare and other services, must be audited independently, and the reports lodged with the proper government department. Should they be eligible for government grants and assistance? Never. Religions must stand or fall on their effectiveness, usefulness and popularity. It is immoral to use census figures to gauge the number of religious people in Australia; these are grossly inflated because of the wording of the questions, and the thoughtless response of people who dont realise that Organised Religions must be carefully monitored, because as history shows all too clearly, they have more often been a force for evil than good. Social security, social services and welfare paid for by the taxpayers should be the responsibility of the governments to whom the money was entrusted. This money should never be handed out to institutions headed by people who, in the face of a total absence of evidence, believe theres an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient superman in the sky who favours them because of their rituals. Only the impartiality of secular state organisations can ensure fair and professional treatment of every citizen, regardless of difference. 4 An extensive study reported in the New Scientist; [15 November 2004] concluded that the emotional and social adjustment of children and teenagers raised by same-sex couples was no different to those raised by heterosexual couples. Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc comments on: APPENDIX 1: List of Recommendations from HREOCs 1998 Report Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief R2.1 The Commonwealth Parliament should enact a Religious Freedom Act which, among other things, recognises and gives effect to the right to freedom of religion and belief. This is not a good recommendation: -As mentioned in our introductory statement, unless the word religion is clearly defined, then this recommendation is so unclear as to be useless in preventing discrimination. Does HREOC want to give Organised Religion free rein, or is the intention to ensure that individuals have the right to choose which religion and/or belief they will follow without coercion? This is an important distinction. And what about those who want to choose agnosticism, no belief, or Atheism? 鱨վ and spouses of religious people must be able to change or discard their religion or faith without fear. At present this is not the case with Islam, nor with the more fundamentalist Christian sects, where spouses and children can be forcibly prevented from apostasy. We suggest the wording be amended to: The Commonwealth Parliament should enact a Religious Freedom Act which ensures that individuals have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to follow a religion or belief. R2.2 The Religious Freedom Act should affirm the right of all religions and organized beliefs as defined to exist and to organise and determine their own affairs within the law and according to their tenets. This is not a good recommendation. The words ...within the law and according to their tenets. are a lawyers dream, they are so unclear. Is HREOC suggesting that religions must always act within the law, or are they saying that religions are permitted to break the law if their doctrines are in opposition to the law? There is no case for any religion to break the law, no matter what their doctrines may demand. Laws must apply to every Australian; every business; every club and organisation; with no special cases or circumstances. Any other course brings the Law into disrepute. Thus the wording must be: The Religious Freedom Act should affirm the right of all religions and organized beliefs as defined to exist and to organise and determine their own affairs within the law. This does not remove their right to worship according to their own tenets. R2.3 The Religious Freedom Act should cover the full range of rights and freedoms recognised in ICCPR article 18 and Religion Declaration articles 1, 5 and 6 including but not limited to: - freedom to hold a particular religion or belief - freedom not to hold a particular religion or belief - freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching - freedom from coercion which would impair religion or belief To this last freedom must be added: -or unbelief. - the right of parents and guardians to organise family life in accordance with their religion or beliefs To this must be added the proviso that they act within the law, and no individual rights are trampled on, such as the childs right to freedom of expression and association. -freedom from discrimination on the ground of religion or belief (detailed in chapter 4). It is essential to add: -and unbelief and Atheism. R2.4 In accordance with ICCPR article 18.3 the Religious Freedom Act should permit only those limitations on the right to manifest a religion or belief which are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (detailed in chapter 3). Agreed. R2.5 For the purposes of the Religious Freedom Act, religion and belief should be given a wide meaning, covering the broad spectrum of personal convictions and matters of conscience. It should include theistic, non-theistic and Atheistic beliefs. It should include minority and non-mainstream religions and belief systems as well as those of a more traditional or institutionalised nature. Religion or belief should be defined as a particular collection of ideas and/or practices: -that relate to the nature and place of humanity in the universe and, where applicable, the relation of humanity to things supernatural that encourage or require adherents to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or, where applicable, to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance -that are held by an identifiable group regardless of how loosely knit and varying in belief and practice that are seen by adherents as constituting a religion or system of belief. -The definition should not apply to all beliefs but only to those that clearly involve issues of personal conviction, conscience or faith. This definition would not cover beliefs which are caused by mental illness or which are motivated by criminal intent. As mentioned on page 2 of this submission, the words Atheist beliefs in the recommendation demonstrate a serious misunderstanding regarding Atheism. Atheism is not a belief. Atheists do not believe there are no gods, they merely accept that theres no evidence for them, and therefore they live their lives assuming there arent any, in the same way as religious people accept there are no fairies and dont expect to see them at the bottom of their garden. R2.6 The obligations in the Religious Freedom Act should apply to individuals, corporations, public and private bodies and all other legal persons who maybe subject to Commonwealth legislation. Does this include religious organisations? It must, if fairness and justice are to be served. R3.12 The federal Attorney-General through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should encourage the development of legislation in Queensland and Western Australia specifically prohibiting female genital mutilation. It should demand, not encourage that legislation! Recommendation on coercion in religious belief and practice R3.15 The federal Attorney-Generals department should convene an inter-faith dialogue: to examine the question of methods of coercion in religious belief and practice and how they should be dealt with to consider whether legal limitations should be imposed on religious groups regarding coercive tactics to formulate an agreed list of minimum standards for the practice of religious groups Recommendation on discrimination on the ground of religion and belief Agree R4.1 The proposed Religious Freedom Act should make unlawful direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of religion and belief in all areas of public life, in accordance with ICCPR articles 2 and 18 and Religion Declaration article 4, subject to two exemptions. A distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job should not be unlawful. Preference in employment for a person holding a particular religious or other belief will not amount to discrimination if established to be a genuine occupational qualification. A distinction, exclusion or preference in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, being a distinction, exclusion or preference required by those doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings made in good faith and necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that particular religion or that creed should not be unlawful provided that it is not arbitrary and is consistently applied. The words: -and no belief must be added to the highlighted first sentence so it will read: The proposed Religious Freedom Act should make unlawful direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of religion and belief, and no belief in all areas........ *The two exemptions listed above are worded in much too general terms. In effect, they simply confirm the present situation where religious schools and other places only have to state that religious adherence is essential to the job even if it is a cleaner or secretary, in order to refuse a position to an applicant. According to these recommendations, a school run by evangelical Christians would be permitted to refuse a job to a well qualified science teacher who didn't embrace creationism over Evolution. We would be interested to know what constitutes injury to religious susceptibilities. Surely the susceptibilities of Atheists are as precious and in danger of being offended as those of religious adherents? This sort of vague caveat is an invitation to religious organisations to flout the intentions of the act. It is all too easy to envisage a teacher being offended by the knowledge that the gardener attributed the glories of nature to evolution, when he/she attributes them to a god-creator. Is it envisaged that religious institutions will be allowed to discriminate if the discrimination is based on dogma that flies in the face of scientific evidence such as the claim that sexual orientation is a choice, not determined in the womb? Surely it is time to demand that all organisations that accept public money are required to obey all laws, regardless of dogma? To do otherwise is to make an ass of the Law. Recommendations on incitement to hatred on the basis of religion and belief R5.1 The federal Attorney-General through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should encourage the States and Territories to repeal laws creating the offence of blasphemy or to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy, as appropriate. Good. R5.3 The proposed Religious Freedom Act should proscribe the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence as required by ICCPR article 20. Religions can only expect protection of this nature if they are prepared themselves to proscribe all forms of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence against Atheists and other non believers; gays; lesbians; transgenders; family planning clinics; abortion doctors and their patients and all other humans who attract religions ire. The wording of this recommendation should include such a quid pro quo clause. The Act should exempt from the proscription of religious vilification, acts done reasonably and in good faith: - in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work - in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest, or - in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest Yes.  New Scientist, 1st September 2007 p 34. Marc Hauser, Harvard University Cognitive Scientist in his book Moral Minds.  New Scientist, 1st September 2007 p 36. Jesse Bering heads the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queens University in Belfast below is his explanation of why people believe in life after death. He is Reader in the School of History and Anthropology and Director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture. His work has focused on the psychological foundations of supernatural belief. Berings experimental research program provides some of the first evidence for the naturalness of belief in the afterlife. His simulation constraint hypothesis holds that a delimiting phenomenological boundary prevents people from experiencing the absence of certain categories of mental states, such as emotions, desires, and various episteme (the most ethereal qualia). Because we can never know what it feels like to be without such states, these natural representational borders encourage afterlife beliefs; when we attempt to reason about what it will be like after deathand what it is like for those who have already diedwe inevitably get ensnared by simulation constraints and reason in terms of a continued consciousness. His other research interests include peoples attributions of symbolic meaning to the occurrence of natural events (e.g., signs or omens), the psychological mechanisms by which strategic social information is adaptively managed within human groups (e.g., confession and gossip), and the extent to which human social evolution was influenced by adaptive problems that were fundamentally unique to our species (e.g., natural language and theory of mind).  Gregory Paul an independent researcher from Baltimore Maryland published a study that attempted to quantify the negative effects of religion (Journal of Gary Jensen in a more detailed study Religion and Society vol 8, p 1. found that homicide rates were indeed linked to passionate beliefs.  An extensive study reported in the New Scientist; [15 November 2004] concluded that the emotional and social adjustment of children and teenagers raised by same-sex couples was no different to those raised by heterosexual couples.      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1 #KMct_`:F ""#g#&']))0{000012/234e45g77;<<AB K7KSMMPPPPWSXTuVVX(YZ []]7`z`ǽ۶۫۫۫۫۫۶ǫ۫۫۫۫ǫ۫۫۫ǫ۫۫۫۫۫hvhv6>*] hv5\hvhv6]hvhv5\jhv0J:UhvhBhv>*hBhB5H*\hBhB5\hB@#cdt ^ x:IA| ""#g#%&'gdv$a$gdB']))),v-E.f/0{000012/234e45g779;;<<=j>>gdv>?gAABCDFHI K7KSMMNROPPPPWSXTuVVV*WW4XXXgdvgdvX(YYZ [^[[']]]]!^f^^_7`z``aPbbbc & Fgd#9 & Fgdv & Fgdv & F^`gdvgdvz``ccegef9fkklamm_nn^ppeqqtunuwwxby{|}~ˀA τ3 le6(@6<flЛܜKV\.")u|h#9hv56>*\]h#96>*]jhv0J:Uhvhv5\h#9hv5\h#9hvh#9hv6>*]Hcccegeef9fUgih_ikklKlamm_nn^ppeqqtunu9vvgd#9gdv & Fgd#9v%wwwxby{|}~xˀA τ3 le6gd#9gdv (@6<fl$X)dЛܜKV\9gd#9gd#9gdv9v,.")8u|DMS[ŭ˰eu8gd#9gdv|DMSŭeu8.1FԺP\ɸɸɍvhBB* CJaJph2ehB6CJ]aJhBCJaJhBB*CJ^JaJph(hB6B*CJEH H*]^JaJph!hB6B*CJ]^JaJphhBjhB0J:U hV/h*h#96>*]h#9hv5\hvh#9hv6>*].8gd@0gdqgdmL;gd#9gdv  hV/h*hBmHnHu h_hBjh_hBUjhUhhBhB6CJ]aJhBCJaJ:&P 1h:pqBP. A!"#n$n% xxxp0  0 P@P *Normal  CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH P@P ' Heading 1$$ & Fh@&5CJ\aJL@L ' Heading 2  & F@&6B*\aJphL@!L ' Heading 3  & F@&5B*CJ\phB@1B ' Heading 4  & F@& 6\]N@N mL Heading 5$$@&B*OJQJph$?`T@T mL Heading 6$$@&6B*OJQJ]ph$?`T@T mL Heading 7$$@&6B*OJQJ]ph@@@V@V mL Heading 8$$@&B*CJOJQJaJph@@@\ @\ mL Heading 9 $$@&6B*CJOJQJ]aJph@@@DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k@( 0No List dOd 'Heading 1 Char Char&5CJOJQJ\_HaJmH sH tH nOn 'Heading 2 Char Char/56B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH phsH tH dOd 'Heading 3 Char Char&6CJOJQJ\_HaJmH sH tH bO!b 'Heading 4 Char Char#CJOJQJ]_HaJmH sH tH *W@1* ] Strong5\XOAX mL Char Char7)B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH ph$?`sH tH ^OQ^ mL Char Char6/6B*CJOJQJ]_HaJmH ph$?`sH tH ^Oa^ mL Char Char5/6B*CJOJQJ]_HaJmH ph@@@sH tH POqP mL Char Char4!B*OJQJ_HmH ph@@@sH tH VOV  mL Char Char3'6B*OJQJ]_HmH ph@@@sH tH F@F ]Header$ B#a$CJ>O> ] Char Char2CJOJQJaJB @B ]0Footer$ B#a$CJ>O> ]0 Char Char1CJOJQJaJT@T'pTOC 30^`06PJ^JmHnHuBOB 4]0Placeholder Text B*phFG@F _List Continue 4lx^l<m@<TY1 / 1.1 / 1.1.1 F F@F 'pTOC 1! d# 0^`05D@D 'pTOC 2"0^`056V@V*pTOC 4%# d# 0^`0 mHnHu6U@A6 ~U$0 Hyperlink >*B*phJOJ ^]rp TOC Heading%5CJmH sH tH D+@bD 'op Endnote Text &CJaJDOqD &op Char CharOJQJ_HmH sH tH J*@J LEndnote ReferenceCJH*OJQJ0l@0TY 1 / a / i) F @n@@TYArticle / Section* F DT@D TY Block Text+x]^2B@2 TY Body Text,x<P@< TY Body Text 2 -dx>Q@> TY Body Text 3.xCJaJPM@P TYBody Text First Indent /`HC@H TYBody Text Indent0x^TN@T TYBody Text First Indent 2 1`RR@"R TYBody Text Indent 22dx^TS@2T TYBody Text Indent 33x^CJaJ2?@B2 TYClosing 4^$L@$ TYDate5<[@b< TYE-mail Signature6.X@q. TYEmphasis6]h$@h Envelope Address)8@ &+D/^@ ^JF%@F TYEnvelope Return9 CJ^JaJL&@L LFootnote ReferenceCJH*OJQJF@F op Footnote Text ;CJaJ0_@0 TY HTML Acronym:`@: TY HTML Address=6]0a@0 TY HTML Cite6]>b@> TY HTML CodeCJOJQJ^JaJ<c@< TYHTML Definition6]Fd@F TY HTML KeyboardCJOJQJ^JaJRe@"R TYHTML PreformattedBCJOJQJ^JaJ:f@1: TY HTML Sample OJQJ^JJg@AJ TYHTML TypewriterCJOJQJ^JaJ8h@Q8 TY HTML Variable6].(@a. TY Line Number4/@r4 TYListG^`82@8 TYList 2H6^6`83@8 TYList 3IQ^Q`84@8 TYList 4Jl^l`85@8 TYList 5K^`:O:LStyle NumberedL F>6@> TY List Bullet 2 M & F>7@> TY List Bullet 3 N & F>8@> TY List Bullet 4 O & F>9@> TY List Bullet 5 P & FBD@B TY List ContinueQx^FE@"F TYList Continue 2R6x^6FF@2F TYList Continue 3SQx^QFH@BF TYList Continue 5Tx^:1@R: TY List Number U & F>:@b> TY List Number 2 V & F >;@r> TY List Number 3 W & F ><@> TY List Number 4 X & F>=@> TY List Number 5 Y & FI@ TYMessage HeadergZn$d%d&d'd-DM NOPQ^n`^J<^@< TY Normal (Web)[OJQJ>@> TY Normal Indent \^4O@4 TY Note Heading].)@. TY Page NumberDZ@D TY Plain Text_CJOJQJ^JaJ0K@0 TY Salutation`6@@6 TY Signature a^>J@"> TYSubtitleb$<@&a$^J@3 TYTable 3D effects 1m:Vcj#j#j#j#j.j.j.j. c55\5B* \`J phB* `J ph:@C: TYTable 3D effects 2:Vdj.@j#j9jj 4d5\5\x@Sx TYTable 3D effects 3:Vej.@j j j#j9jj44e:B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\fr@cf TYTable Classic 1:Vf0  j#j#j#jj f9B*`Jph6]5\56\]s@s TYTable Classic 2#:Vg0  j% j#j0 jjj%  g:5\B*`JphB* `J ph5\Xt@X TYTable Classic 3:Vh0    jj0  j0  hQB* ph5B*\`JphB* `J ph56B*\]`Jphu@ TYTable Classic 4:Vi0  jj0 j0 jj iX5\B* `J ph56B*\]`JphB* `J ph5\Vv@V TYTable Colorful 1:Vj0    j% j% jj%  j<B*ph56\]56\]56\]Xw@X TYTable Colorful 2:Vk0 j% jj0  j k@56\]56B*\]`Jph56\]8x@8 TYTable Colorful 3:Vl0j;$ j0 j%  l5B*\`Jphy@ TYTable Columns 1 :Vm0    j j jjjj#jj4ml5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\5\5\5\z@ TYTable Columns 2:Vnj j jjjj% jj4n5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5B*\`Jph5\B*`Jph5\5\{@ TYTable Columns 3:Vo0j j jjj#j% j4oh5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\B*`Jph5\|@ TYTable Columns 4:Vpj j jjj% 4pLB*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\B*`Jphd}@d TYTable Columns 5:Vq0    j jjj#j#4qVB*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\56\]4@#4 TYTable Contemporary:Vr0j%@ j% j% 4r<@B*`JphB*`Jph5B*\`Jph@3 TY Table Elegant_:Vs0j s;B*`Jphn@Cn TY Table Grid7:Vt0t~@S TY Table Grid 1z:Vu0jj u6]6]"@c" TY Table Grid 2:Vv0jjj#j v,5\5\5\5\@s TY Table Grid 3:Vw0  jjj0  w5\5\B@B TY Table Grid 4:Vx0  jj0 j0  xB5B*\`Jph5B*\`JphB*`Jph @  TY Table Grid 5:Vy0    jjj# j y5\5\(@( TY Table Grid 6:Vz0    jj#j#j z(5\B*`Jph5\N@N TY Table Grid 7:V{0    jjj#j# j {25\5\5\5\5\$@$ TY Table Grid 8:V|0jjj%  |H5B*\`Jph5B*\`Jph5B*\`Jphz@z TY Table List 1:V}0  j%@ jj#j0 j4}M@B*`JphB*`Jph56B* \]`J ph5\t@t TY Table List 2:V~0 j%@ jj#j0 j4~G@B*`JphB*`Jph5B*\`Jph5\@ TY Table List 3:V0  j# j# j 05B* \`J ph6B* ]`J ph@ TY Table List 4w:V0    j0   5B*\`Jph@ TY Table List 5:V0jj#  5\5\ @#  TY Table List 6:V0j%@ j# j#  45\5\@3 TY Table List 7:V0  j%@ j% jjj# j0  4>@B*`Jph5\5\5\5\@C TY Table List 8:V0j%@ j% jjj#j0 4D@B*`Jph5\5\5\56\]@S TYTable Professionall:V0j%  5B*\`Jpho@c TYTable Simple 1:V0  j#j# vp@sv TYTable Simple 2:Vj#j# j#j# j#j#O5\5\5B*\`Jph5\5\5\q@ TYTable Simple 3l:V0    j%  5B*\`Jpht@t TYTable Subtle 1 :Vj0@ j# j# j0  j. jj45\5\t@t TYTable Subtle 2:V0j0  j0  j# j# jj5\5\p@p TY Table Theme7:V0@ TY Table Web 1h:V03j B*`Jph@ TY Table Web 2h:V03j B*`Jph@ TY Table Web 3h:V03j B*`JphN>@N TYTitle$<@&a$5CJ KH\^JaJ FV@ F TYFollowedHyperlink >*B* ph:0@ :  List Bullet & FO" 'Contact detailsC$$ & 6m I %\d.1$7$8$H$CJOJQJ^J_H mH sH RO1 R E Char Char9&6CJOJQJ\_HaJmH sH tH POA P E Char Char8#CJOJQJ]_HaJmH sH tH FOQ F E Char CharOJQJ^J_HmH sH tH TOa T ;opFootnote Text CharOJQJ_HmH sH tH _ |w#cdt^ x:IA|g]!!!$v%E&f'({(((()*/*+,e,-g//133445j667g99:;<>@A C7CSEEFRGHPHHWKXLuNNN*OO4PPP(QQR S^SS'UUUU!VfVVW7XzXXYPZZZ[[[]g]]^9^U_i`_accdKdaee_ff^hheiilmnm9nn%ooopbqstuvxwwwxyyAz {|3} le6 (@6<fl$X)dГܔKV\9v,.")8u|DMS[ť˨eu8ϺкҺӺպֺغٺۺܺ00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@;0@;0@;0@;000@0X00@0X00@0X00@0X00@0@0X00Ϻ@0Z00@0Z00X00X00X00 00 ))),z`|bhmo'>Xcv98cefgijklnd $&,!T  # @ 0(  B S  ?H0(  =7hd 7h 7hT% 7hT 7hD8 7hLi 7h 7h, 7h4d 7hl 7h$ 7hC 7h 7h 7hT 7hL 7h 7h 7h 7hc 7h: 7h4O 7h 7h+ 7h 7h,? 7h 7h#7h 7h#7h"7h 7h 7h 7h 7h 7h 7h 7hq 7hTS 7h,+ 7h$ 7h$o 7h 7h 7hD 7h 7h 7h\"7h 7h\"7h 7h #7h 7hH 7h< 7h 7h 7h 7h 7ha YY   NN^55EC$C$,,GGdIdINNQQXX[[\\bbeeqq3v3vvvԲoy      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456879;:<bb   ZttA``L$L$,,GGjIjINN%Q%QXX[[\\bbee"q"q EH&? 3-Eb oF F J v"CN q;OoSCcFQ^DdBTe~ctN}^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.h^`CJOJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`hH Article . ^`hH Section . P^`PhH() `p`^``phH() P^`PhH) P^`PhH) ^`hH) P^`PhH. 0p0^0`phH. SS^S`o(hH SS^S`o(hH.SS^S`56CJOJQJo(hH() SS^S`o(hH() ^`o(hH .... ^`o(hH ..... ^`o(hH ......  `^``o(hH.......  00^0`o(hH........ hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. pp^p`hH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PP^P`hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.h^`CJOJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.^`CJOJQJhH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. hh^h`hH. P^`PhH.. ^`hH... xp^`xhH....  ^`hH .....  X ^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8^`8hH........  `^``hH......... ^`hH. ^`hH. pp^p`hH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PP^P`hH.88^8`OJQJo(hH ^`hH. pp^p`hH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PP^P`hH.h^`CJOJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`CJOJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`^Jo(hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.}|~"CN/>`!F Jx)}tN}x)fQ u1 oFEH&?9014gQ q;OLgQ SCcgQ |7 SCcO#Te^Dd3-E500CTt00S0Us0PS0Us0PRS0Us0P         ۦ                 ۦ                          ۦ        ۦ        lh        J"Uf-n>;F[>v\DK%r2#9yL] wf*T@gF]SE+#~U$'@01*I1l1 ?L-Fc@GSO(KP@5QLU4]E__cikj^mopwp^]r wTw@}f~4d~%$*W=`=_r/lSW_zV/n@U;B'4jw-.Sf-&yv[q9Ox qv\s//FO(TY]vmLnY.X@0 P@Unknown Gz Times New RomanCSymbolSymbol3& z Arial?z TimesTimes7K@CambriaG5  hMS Mincho-3 fg?5 z Courier NewCMArialMTArial;Wingdings"1hc̦c̦[C[Cnx4d 2qHX v21Cassandra DawesCassandra Dawes         *   )   L      Oh+'0|  8 D P\dlt1Cassandra Dawes Normal.dotCassandra Dawes2Microsoft Office Word@NZ@L_\@ܭ \՜.+,0 hp  $鱨վC[' 1 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoprstuvwxz{|}~Root Entry F] \Data q1TableyWordDocument<SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q