ࡱ> Z\Y%` 0Bbjbj"x"x 8^@@0:  8,< VVL}}}$h~  j}}jj "j  j  WJ iT #<+,F!F!WF! W,}"}}}&j}}}jjjj    Submission in response to September 2008 announcement of - A Review of Religious Freedoms Commissioned by 鱨վ Ref: Freedom of Religion & Belief in the 21st Century project (September 2008) Submitted by: Penny Holland Dated: 13 Oct. 08 Submission to Australian Federal Government regarding the separation of State and Religion The Social Importance of Religions Since earliest human times beliefs ranging from simple tribal superstition to adherence to the tenets of powerful pan-national organised religions have been an inevitable by-product of human cultural evolution. The most successful religions have always been those that can command the most allegiance of the most people towards common goals. A mass of people moving together can achieve much greater goals than single individuals moving to their own music. When the goals are good the results are great, when the goals are bad the results are disastrous. Religions are not alone in the ability to move the masses but they are by far the most stable and successful way to synchronise human behaviour. The universal way of recruiting and retaining religious adherents is by manipulating beliefs preferably from early childhood but adult conversion is usually not too late to be acceptable (even posthumously by the Mormons!). The specific beliefs addressed by religions are the basic moral values required to form a functioning society and the supernatural. The supernatural covers all natural laws and manifestations not explicable by current cultural knowledge. The supernatural aspect of belief manipulation allows for enormous creativity and diversity in the identifying characteristics of a religion but is of course vulnerable to increases in scientific knowledge and improved understanding of some hitherto mysterious mechanisms of the natural world. Fortunately, in modern Australia, most of the time religious goals and activities are largely irrelevant to the day to day lives of atheists and nominists. By nominists I mean those who are nominal members of a religion, according to their own description, but who do not adhere closely to the scriptures and strictures nor do they pay close attention to the current hot pulpit topics. It would be interesting to know how many nominists we have in our population since they represent the swinging voters on the question of the balance of power between church and state in our nation. They also represent the flexibility of the nation to respond to crises. Some crises benefit from more religious coherence (eg war time) and others demand a more secular pragmatism with tolerance of change and diversity of ideas (eg. Climate change, immigration pressures, energy shortages, new food sources etc). I am of course assuming that atheists (not that we have a reliable count of these either) will usually push for secular and possibly scientific evidence based solutions. The seriously religious will do whatever they are told by their authority figures some of whom have no allegiance to Australia nor even a presence in the country. These overly influential foreign religious leaders give rise to most of my anxieties on the topic of religious vs state influence and power. All religions are probably equally good at promoting the core moral virtues that enable societies to flourish. The devil is quite literally in the detail of implementation. The emphasis or priority of one virtue over another varies considerably from one religion to another. As situations in the world change (or as people move from one cultural milieu to another) so a religions customary practices become more or less appropriate. Dreamtime stories encourage sharing but with no upper limit on this virtue in a more competitive western society rewards for individual effort will be diluted to a point where incentive is quashed. Islamic women are encouraged to be modest and chaste but some of the methods used to enforce this virtue have resulted in cruelty and an imbalance of power between the sexes neither of which are ethical nor an aid to sustaining a flourishing civilisation in the 21st century. Catholicism preaches the sanctity of life but its entrenched interpretation of this basic moral value has led to efforts to control every aspect of reproduction so inhibiting many efforts of families and societies to restrain population growth, avoid using precious resources on unplanned pregnancies and even protect against infections. Hardly desirable outcomes within the context of some of our modern dilemmas. Life may be precious but for the human species at least it is no longer rare. We need rational debate on all moral issues, not just religious debate. I have heard no convincing argument that Doctors of Divinity are more able to resolve moral issues than Doctors of any other persuasion. In fact the DDs may have a serious conflict of interest if the conserving of their religions current teachings takes priority over desired outcomes in our current and likely future environment. Totally secular social and political power has also led to undesirable extremes such as Hitlers Germany and today with some of Chinas heavy handed methods of implementing no doubt well intentioned policies. Any debate benefits from multiple voices. We need and it seems we have many voices in multi-cultural Australia but no one voice should be so loud that it drowns out another. Wherever possible any policy, legislation or even encouraged behaviour or custom should be monitored to ensure it generates outcomes that benefit most people and disadvantages very few and none disastrously. Monitoring must also prevent authority conferred by our policies being abused by the hapless individuals that have to make it work in practice. Design of policy should be managed like the design of computer systems allow plenty of time for testing! This country may well be one of the safest in the world today while still providing enough challenge to ensure growth and prosperity. Lets make sure it stays safe for everyone. The Lone voice of Reason Religious groups have the advantage of being organisations. It is obviously more efficient for government bodies to manage disparate social requirements at the organisation level. However, individuals without a religious affiliation who may not be interested in a socio-political alignment are under represented by this model. I feel it is important that lobby groups whose very characteristics make them more successful at recruitment not have an undue political influence just because of their numbers. If an idea or political demand has no intrinsic logical or ethical merit I expect government leaders to resist it no matter what the pressure from religious or cultural groups. Some of the controversy simmering over this review comes from just such religious groups who fear a reduction of their power to influence policy. Provided that faith groups recognise that others hold different beliefs just as passionately (with or without deity backing) as they hold theirs and provided they accept that commonsense, compromise and scientific evidence are better guidelines for government policy making then they should have nothing to fear. Blustering about morality and ethics when the only definition of these concepts is your own is simply not going to be acceptable in a sophisticated 21st century democracy. There are equally strong moral arguments on both sides of such contentious issues as abortion, euthanasia, gender equality, early childhood inculcation of faith based habits and beliefs, treatment of those outside your own faith etc. Agreeing on desired outcomes and then seeking evidence to determine or predict which policies will achieve those outcomes can provide the common framework we need to allow us all to live together. Looking into writings collected over a thousand years ago created using different languages and metaphors and set in a different context is not our best option. I am concerned that some people of faith are unable to look past these early texts and the interpretation given to them by their religious leaders. Separation of church and state will be a real social advance if the state provides a truly independent position of reason to balance arguments based on religious sensibilities whose origins are lost in the mists of antiquity. This review should not just be about accommodating a variety of religions and cultures (necessary though that is) but also about quelling the excesses of superstition in favour of a more rational society. General Comments Differentiate between spiritual beliefs personal, and organised religion quasi political. Demographic information as usually gathered (selected from a brief list) will hide a possible grouping of people who feel a common identity (ethnic or cultural) or some empathy (nominal religious affiliation) or set of customs or habits (common origin of birth and early schooling). These groupings may sometimes be expressed as religious but this might not indicate how people actually align with each other to socialise, provide support or even lobby for changes at local, state or federal level. Where a religious dictate is explicitly contravened by an Australian law (civil or criminal) the Australian law must prevail. This fact must be made luminously clear to all migrants I would favour signatures from all adult migrants to say they have read and understood the implications for them and their family. This imposes a responsibility on the government to provide the information in a variety of languages and explanations in all the relevant cultural contexts. Of course in a democracy community groups that disagree with a law can lobby and vote to change it. As in all democratic processes this will cause concern for groups less numerous and hence less powerful. Spreading false or misleading information to influence law making or politics in general must be discouraged (preferably by fines, ridicule etc rather than say prison). Nevertheless the majority will rule and this disquieting fact may make the current mix of Australians look anxiously at the immigration policy. These concerns are not racist but legitimate and should be aired openly and without censure. Clashes of cultural customs and localised rules are more problematic. Schools and workplaces often feel they have the power to insist on dress codes and behaviour for example even when unrelated to work activities. If the minority has choices they can go elsewhere but if not the authority needs to show some sensitivity and commonsense. The legal system may need to create an area of arbitration designed to assist in the speedy and low cost resolution of these sorts of issues. Further on the schools issue yes evolution must be taught as part of science creationism or ID belongs in RI. On a more creative note all government funded schools should teach a comparative religion course history and current status of worlds major religions (including indigenous Australian religions), what they believe in and why etc. The course to be presented by an atheist if possible to avoid bias or a series of presenters. In any case the content must be agreed by all the relevant experts and the Education Department Atheist in Residence. ( Gender equality tricky since the genders are so obviously not equal and human biology and its evolving social structures rely on the complementarity of the sexes. The word opportunity is key here and is much more enshrined in law than it was in my youth. As stated at the start civil law must be upheld and new migrants must get some education on potential clashes with their cultural expectations. This will not entirely stop intimidation but community values must gradually find their own level. Radicalism. There will always be fanatics, religious, racial or political even football! The only thing a government can usefully do is enact and enforce laws against any incitement to break those laws already well established to protect people and property. In addition any effort to create environments that reduce the need and opportunity for antisocial behaviour will pay dividends. Try introducing law studies in schools that help young people understand the implicit contract between citizens and their government regarding protection and safety vs restriction of freedoms. Clashes between different faith groups in Australia should be avoided and the possibility that civil strife elsewhere in the world may spill over into Australia is a concern. Refusing refugees from troubled areas because of this concern is not morally tenable. Government should instead fund departments adequately such that they can remain vigilant about issues affecting migrants and their countries of origin. In addition laws and policies must not be seen to favour one faith or ethnic group over another. The request for submissions on the religion vs state question might yield useful insights into how this may be achieved. Early intervention to stop incitement activities may also help. In general I am not in favour of weakening laws or making special exceptions for religious sensitivities. This should apply particularly to immigrants coming here voluntarily. We owe a rather more onerous duty of care to indigenous Australians but even here Government should be careful not to allow another secret womens business to distract resources from real benefits for original Australians. I hope there will be many submissions from indigenous Australians and that their concerns will be made available to aid non-indigenous understanding. Comments on Article 18 Freedom of Religion and Belief 1998 In general I agree with these articles as written with the following specific comments. R2.3 Some right of appeal seems appropriate for children whose parents/guardians are given rights to organise family life. This could be open to abuse and prevent children assimilating into Australian society. For example if a parent arranges a marriage for a child against the childs wishes assuming that the age when the marriage can take place will be governed by Australian law and not open to the discretion of the parent. Even without differences in culture and religion this balance of power between family heads and the state can be problematic and is not always handled well. Funding must be sufficient to produce good and sensible outcomes not exerting this power properly could be worse than doing nothing. R3.15 Coercion I would like to see coercion of all types including that backed by religious beliefs limited by law. A government is obliged to reduce the vulnerability of its more powerless citizens wherever possible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END OF SUBMISSION~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Submission on Religious Freedoms to 鱨վ  FILENAME Submission - Religion vs State.doc Page  PAGE 1 of  NUMPAGES 4  DATE \@ "d/MM/yyyy" 3/12/2008 <=^_  p q 0 4 : B {  % U V % + MNYZno蹭袏yyyncnchv hOJQJhv h'OJQJhv hwuOJQJhv h!zOJQJhv hSEOJQJh6OJQJhv hIOJQJhv h;5OJQJhv hI5OJQJhv h-&rOJQJhv h,DH*OJQJhv h-&r5OJQJhv h,DOJQJhv h,D5OJQJ&<=]   q Nogd&dPgdgd($d%d&d'dNOPQgdv ,$d%d&d'dNOPQ`gdv gd-&r0BB:DMno@B@Bd;<Sc: !h!!"ɽɲɲɲ~rg\Qhv htzvOJQJhv h.dOJQJhv h?}OJQJhv h?}5OJQJh6OJQJhv h"E"OJQJhv h^OJQJhv h[[OJQJhv hx=dOJQJhv hhOJQJhv h ^H*OJQJhv h ^OJQJhv hP&OJQJhv h!zOJQJhv hOJQJhv h'OJQJo<!"&))),K & FEƀ&.gd&4h$gd6gd6gd ""%%%&&&&&'')))))U*W***<+,,g/W0X0:2;233m4n4tttit^i^S^Shv h,)OJQJhv h-5OJQJhv hqwOJQJhv h&4hOJQJhv hIOJQJhv hKOJQJhv hK5OJQJh5OJQJhv h,OJQJhv hPOJQJhv hyOJQJh6OJQJhv h?}OJQJhv htzvH*OJQJhv htzvOJQJhv hfCOJQJ ,X0;2gK & FEƀ&.gd&4hK & FEƀ&.gd&4hn4o4p4h6i677.717o777l888999:;=====,>>>R?AAAAAAABƻƻܰzodood\d\dhv OJQJhv h-&rOJQJhv hedOJQJhv h T5OJQJhv hZ5OJQJhv hZOJQJhv h]gOJQJh6OJQJhv huOJQJhv h TOJQJhv hOJQJhv h OJQJhv h,)OJQJhv h-5OJQJ jJhv h,)OJQJ$;2p4i6gK & FEƀ&.gd&4hK & FEƀ&.gd&4hi68o;gK & FEƀ&.gd&4hK & FEƀ&.gd&4ho;==,>A0235689;?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWX[Root Entry FSlT]Data 01Table8V!WordDocument8^SummaryInformation(IDocumentSummaryInformation8QCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q