ࡱ> NPM%` 07bjbj"x"x 8L@@/4V$Bh^ B^&0V^^^ ]BV   The following submission to the FRB Project is from the Church and Nation committee of the Presbyterian Church of South Australia, its committee charged with the responsibility of addressing such issues on behalf of the denomination in this State. THE TITLE OF THE INQUIRY The committee is disturbed by the deliberate and calculated inclusion of atheistic groups as equal stakeholders in the discussion of freedom of religion. We begin, here, because our understanding of the root meaning of religion is that it is the binding back of life to a supernatural being or beings. Therefore, if the belief-system of atheism and we agree that atheism is a belief system is to be included, we strongly wish to assert that the phrase freedom OF religion should be understood and advanced by the inquiry as promoting freedom FOR religion, because it could be deliberately misunderstood as freedom FROM religion, as it has been in the former Soviet Union and other such countries. We would not welcome such progressive thinking no doubt championed by atheists and others -- in Australia: as our sacred text says they promise freedom but themselves are the slaves of corruption. [Second Letter of Peter 2:19 ESV] THE RESEARCH AREAS We wish to comment on the 7 research areas as follows. 1: Specifically, we do not wish to see the enactment of a Federal Freedom of Religion Act, especially not one modelled on the Victorian Religious Villification Act 2001 with its civil enforcement provisions. The famous two Dannys prosecution, and that prosecutions overturning, shows both the dangers to civil liberty and the redundancy of such legislation. It certainly did not promote social cohesion and we are relieved that neither South Australia nor New South Wales proceeded to enact similar, proposed legislation. We note, with alarm, at recommendation 5.3 and 5.4 of the freedom to believe paper, both the exemptions and penalties proposed in such an Act to be strikingly similar to the Victorian model. Nowhere is an exemption for religious teaching or similarly-worded clause included. Whether the term statement in the public interest would be held to apply to the vigorous statement of one religions absolute-truth claims, stated at a place of worship as over against another religions absolute-truth claims is debatable a matter of juridical interpretation. When thinking about the exemptions mentioned in recommendation 5.3, with the removal of laws on blasphemy, why should the exemptions for artistic expression, continue to exist, allowing the ridicule usually of Christianity(the majority-consensus religion)? To enact an Act with such provisions, we believe, would further restrict freedom rather than expand it and would practically promote more conflict than now exists. In general terms, we believe that there is no need for such an Act and that genuine issues such as better education about and practices when interacting with indigenous people (Recommendation 3) can be addressed by the amending/modifying of existing legislation/regulations. 2: We believe that there is adequate protection for the free exercise of all genuine religions in Australia, although prejudice and discrimination certainly does and will continue to exist against all religions. We understand that S116 of the Federal Constitution, when it states that government shall not make any law for establishing any religion uses the term religion as equivalent to Christian denomination i.e. the Anglican, Roman Catholic or even Presbyterian religion. This level playing-field for all denominations and the tolerance for Jews and others to practice their faith has been a fine legacy of this nations founders. This is why the prayers to open parliament ought not be considered as controversial in that they reflect the still-existing majority-consensus religion, Crhistianity, whilst not actually mentioning the Name of Jesus Christ thus not being exclusionary of other faiths but a tradition/heritage link to our nations foundation. This provision of the Constitution was never meant to exclude either people of faith or recognized religious institutions from involvement in public life. It was meant to prevent the hegemony of a powerful denomination as in the United Kingdom. Before even considering the benefit of a charter of rights we would need to be convinced that a sizeable group[s] of people from minority religious groups were facing hardship in associating for worship or similar restrictions. We are not aware of such a situation; in fact, at the Adelaide consultation on this project which our Convener attended representatives of other religions who were present, stated that they had substantial freedom to practice their religions. Such charter of rights legislation, especially when administered apart from the ethos of a Common Law understanding, is open to endless wrangling and arbitrary interpretation by tribunals usually established to administer it. We recognise that some strands of the religious scene wish to promote a unified inter-faith pooling-of-shared-core-values approach to society. We are persuaded that the best model for the protection of our rare liberties in Australia is to ensure that each religious grouping has freedom to organise and worship in accord with its tenets and also present its truth-claims without restriction unless such freedom directly impinges on another groupings freedoms. 3: We do recognise the potential that faith-based service-delivery providers could be silenced in their evaluation of government policies due to receiving funding. For instance, those tendering to provide gambling counselling agree to do so without any religious or political bias, thus not only surrendering the opportunity to use their distinctive spiritual resources of teaching and prayer but potentially restraining themselves from recommending gambling-tax reform. We believe the governments funding of such agencies is motivated not by the wish to silence any criticism they might offer, but the recognition that their service-ethos is the best vehicle through which to direct their spending. We see this government recognition, too, in the extension of funding to faith-based schools. We would not oppose the addition of a multi-faith education component to the national schools core curriculum as long as the freedom for religious education in the parents preferred faith was not removed from school-systems. We believe that the various taxation concessions to religious institutions and practitioners should continue as recognition of their valuable contribution to the nation. We believe that the only ground for any restriction of religiously-motivated dress should be the inability to identify an individual hence on security grounds. 4: We recognise that the Muslim community, in particular, has come under much scrutiny since 2001. We realise that many would have experienced discrimination/some level of isolation due to being identified with the extremist elements who promote alienation from western modernity and hostility to it. We are sure that some unwarranted attention has occurred under these circumstances; however, this is only a repeat of the German and Japanese experiences of last century and an unavoidable consequence of security tensions. We recognise the necessity of security services intrusion into the life and worship-expressions of radical Islam centres which do exist in Australia. Where ever religion, of whatever tradition, is deemed to be a threat to national security, it is understandable that the majority will seek to defend themselves against their perceived enemy. In a general sense, we recognise that any genuine practitioner of a supernatural religion will, at times, face misunderstanding even persecution in this selfish, materialistic world and such mistreatment cannot be legislated away! As our sacred text states: all who would live a godly life in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution [Second Letter to Timothy 3:12]. 5: We would begin by stating that there has always been lobbying by all sorts of groups as a feature of the political process. In recent years, the left-leaning consensus both within the Christian churches and society, generally, has been responded to by more conservative forces seeking to major on the moral imperatives which they see as at the heart of any stable society. We believe that pejorative terms like fundamentalist and religious right have been used by these cultural/political elites to try and counter the expression of grass-roots concerns about certain developments within our nation. Christians and Muslims have agitated/suggested a variety of policies to government in recent years. For instance, the reaffirmation of the traditional view of marriage, by the former, and the proposal to legalise polygamy, by the latter. The entrenched Jeffersonian stance, enshrining separation between institutionalised denomination and state means that specific Christian preferred policy is not automatically embraced by government; conscience votes often result in secularist ideas dominating. However, given that Christianity is still the majority-consensus religion, on some moral issues its claims would still be most likely to be influential, as distinct from specifically Islamic or any other ideals. We believe that those who are citizens of Australia should desire to improve their knowledge of the common language, English. We would want to see bilingual not totally foreign signs erected in places where newcomer Australians live, shop and play. We believe that it is reasonable to seek acceptance of values such as tolerance, democracy, the rule of law, a commonly shared language and similar concepts by newcomer Australians. The voices of business, labour, academia, environmentalism and others are out there seeking to influence government, so why not the religious? 6: We see modern technology, in itself, as a neutral phenomenon. We have long campaigned for the electronic medias standards to be tightened regarding the use of religiously-offensive language and the portrayal of violent and pornographic programming material. Such programming, we believe, is generally offensive, degrading of women and corrupting of children. We rejoice in the guidelines adopted regarding the fair portrayal of indigenous people and wish to see such guidelines extended to other groups as well. Religious hatred has been very insignificant in most of our history when compared to the record of other countries. It does not appear to be a growing phenomenon in Australia, though, for a variety of reasons, it is manifested at times in suburbs with large concentrations of certain newcomer ethnic groups. At such times, it is hard to separate what is religiously-based hatred and what represents a fear/hatred of the foreign culture. 7: We believe that if religious expression is to be free, then the conduct of religious groups within their organisations must be according to their tenets. The terms gender equality and sexual diversity as presented in the discussion paper, appear to us to be secularist-modernist constructs with which most religious worldviews would be at variance. According to a secularist view, there is inequity within religious communities and the rejection of diversity. We do not see how it would be just to seek to impose such equalities on religious organisations and are grateful for Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 of the freedom to Believe report. CONCLUSION We appreciate the opportunity to interact with the issues raised in the discussion paper. We realise that the HRCs practical raison detre is to champion the cause of the minority, the underdog, the potentially-marginalised. We simply ask that in seeking to extend benefits to newcomer Australians and their religions, the majority-consensus religion, Christianity, is neither neglected nor has its rights devalued or restricted. Yours Faithfully, Rev. Stefan Slucki, Convener Church and Nation Committee; Presbyterian Church of South Australia. 9K   -  @ s t  - ?򺫺ȝ}}}}n}`R`hEdCJOJQJmH sH h_`OCJOJQJmH sH h_`O5CJOJQJmH sH h(CJOJQJmH sH #h h 6CJOJQJmH sH h CJOJQJmH sH h 5CJOJQJmH sH h'CJOJQJmH sH hICJOJQJmH sH h, CJOJQJmH sH h&CJOJQJmH sH ha6CJOJQJmH sH  H I   ./bcgh !"  7?D-Gabcd6Cgh "WgֺȺȺ֬֬֞~n~n~^~^hq66B*OJQJ^Jphh=6B*OJQJ^Jphh&P6B*OJQJ^Jphh/6B*ϴ/*B*OJQJ^Jph'h&Ph&P6>*B*OJQJ^Jphh&P6B*OJQJ^Jph#`aG H !!7"8"""$$A&B&''.)/)++,)\`aF G H ! !j!!!!!5"" $$%%-%>%D%V%Z%~%%%%0&:&@&֬֬Ȟ֐tttfttftfthYCJOJQJmH sH h!lCJOJQJmH sH h<}CJOJQJmH sH hLCJOJQJmH sH h8QCJOJQJmH sH h4CJOJQJmH sH hyCJOJQJmH sH h>jCJOJQJmH sH hazTCJOJQJmH sH h?'CJOJQJmH sH h7}CJOJQJmH sH (@&A&[&~&'-)/)*'*[*y*|*+++%+-+,,,,,J-Z-M.j.....+/2131S2\2j2ȺȺȺ亞֞qccch;CJOJQJmH sH h-FCJOJQJmH sH hnaCJOJQJmH sH h&Ph!lCJOJQJmH sH hf=CJOJQJmH sH h!lCJOJQJmH sH h+qCJOJQJmH sH hCJOJQJmH sH hYCJOJQJmH sH h<}CJOJQJmH sH hLCJOJQJmH sH #,,..*/+/314122555p6q6@7A7S7T7U7V7W7X7Y7Z7n7w7x777j2y22222255555 66)6-67&7/7?777Ⱥֺ hY4hY4CJOJQJmH sH hY45CJOJQJmH sH hY4CJOJQJmH sH hVCJOJQJmH sH h;CJOJQJmH sH hYCJOJQJmH sH h7CJOJQJmH sH 6&P 1h:p t. A!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List6U@6 v8 Hyperlink >*B*ph/LHI./b c g h  ! "  `aGH78AB.!/!##$$&&*'+'3)4)**---p.q.@/A/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y/Z/n/w/x///000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ! " $/Z00xΊZ00X00Z00X00Z00Z00?@&j27 "#%,7!$78@0(  B S  ?iLx iK iz i{ in iif iO it ix i i7l i  il !i "iz #iT $i %iU CC uu%%))///     LL ~~%%))/// B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState 4L EQ###-...f/l///=7 D U h F,6t|"###Q$Z$%%>&A&***,?,R.U..////33333333333333333--//pAw,+as, 4o?'a6v8f=(@L_`OazTnaEd2=j!l/j8Q+q-F&PY7x q6Vy,r&( @''" ''/@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma"qhz&z& (V (V924d//2QHX ?v82)From To Stefan SluckiCassandra DawesOh+'0 4@ ` l x,From ToStefan Slucki Normal.dotCassandra Dawes2Microsoft Office Word@F#@|B^@|B^ (՜.+,0 hp|  V/' *From To Title  !"#$%&()*+,-.0123456789:;<>?@ABCDFGHIJKLORoot Entry F\B^QData '1Table/^WordDocument8LSummaryInformation(=DocumentSummaryInformation8ECompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q