аЯрЁБс>ўџ >@ўџџџ=џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС%` №ПV"bjbj"x"x .4@@H џџџџџџЄ&&&&&&&:^^^8–,Т:щЖтттттН Н Н hjjjjjj$ŸhЈŽ& Н Н   Ž&&ттлЃ№ № №   &т&тh№  h№ № &&№ тж рбђЃQъЩ^М ‚№ hЙ0щ№ Џ> 6Џ№ Џ&№ xН L 6№ ? ,k БН Н Н ŽŽt |Н Н Н щ    :::$^:::^:::&&&&&&џџџџ Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Submission (Revised Version) Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen, Director Institute for Judaism and Civilization With endorsement by the Rabbinical Council of Victoria The Separation of Religion and State The State, which has executive, legislative and judicial arms, exists for the order and wellbeing of society. It asserts a sovereign control over its territory, is the ultimate territorial owner and administrator of its realm. It exists because, and as long as, it is legitimated by the people living within it. Accordingly, it has to be sensitive also to the grievances and the wishes of its citizens. Democracy, as a special kind of organization of the State, has formal principles, whereby decisions are made in accordance with a majority, where minority rights and individual freedoms are asserted and so forth. Yet within the framework of these formal principles, no specific social values and policies are precluded other than those which would overthrow democracy itself. The concept of the separation of Religion and State in Australia and America, which have similar provisions in this regard, stipulate that (apart from the individual’s freedom to practice his or her religion) the State shall not establish a religion. That is, the State shall not prescribe of its own accord a particular religion with its set of values. Rather religion and values arise within the “public square” and there compete to produce or ratify policies for the State. Religiously based values find their way into public policy because religion is one of the greatest suppliers of values within the public square. The attempt to interpret the separation of religion and state in the sense that religious values must be shut out of all public institutions, including schools, is simply the triumphalism of a secularist ideology, which wants to dominate society with its values against all other (including religious) sentiments arising within the public. Talk about “substantive” (as distinct from formal) democratic values is doing exactly the same thing. It shuts out the faith-basis of many sets of values, by requiring a secularist “shared public reason”; it calls for its brand of “universalism”, which will not admit values for which the basis is faith traditions. Tellingly, this “shared public reason” seeks to overthrow traditional sexual moralities. It is in fact a sectarian, secularist value system, which seeks wrongly to make itself identical to formal “democracy”. The function of the State is to implement true or acceptable values, which it has received, not for which it is a source. Rights and values As the last Chief Justice of Australia, Murray Gleason, stated, rights are themselves derived from values. What then is the difference between those values which have acquired the title of “rights” and those which have not, even though they are accepted values? Those which are called rights tend to be withdrawn from the public political sphere. First, they become fundamental, constituting principles, which are privileged above, and delimit, others, carrying exclusive and punitive force. Secondly, they are withdrawn from the public political sphere into the domain of judicial, executive and administrative interpretation. Judges, officials and committees are then permitted by themselves to apply and interpret these rights, away from the scrutiny, debate and validation of the public political sphere. This does not mean that there should not be ultimate “rights” (and obligations). But the determination of these rights, such as we find with nations at the time when they write their constitutions, have to be more than the simple upshot of a political victory. It is more than a simple majoritarian decision. It is something which follows upon the deep, collective reflection of a nation and the historical experience of humanity. Consider the three propositions: (1) “a man and woman (so long as they do not possess incestuous closeness) have the right to marry”, (2) “a man has a right to marry a man”, (3) “half siblings, a man and a woman with a common mother, have a right to marry”. Proposition (1) has been held as a fundamental right (and value) for thousands of years by all major religious traditions. The same traditions have rejected (2) and (3). Some societies are now moving towards (2) and Sweden, so I have heard, now upholds (3). A consequence of enacting (2) and (3) as rights may well mean that teaching – whether one’s own children or others - that the practices of homosexuality and incest are non-normative, can fall into the category of “incitement” and “vilification”. It could be punished as subversion of newly conceived “human rights”. Making these into rights further means that judges, committees and administrators could now, outside the political arena, also routinely extend this right into new areas. The administration of IVF to single women – in disregard of the existing legislation - was permitted by a Judge who extrapolated from “rights” under the Sex discrimination Act. The reasoning appears to be a very strange one. It is certainly true that individuals are entitled to use of services regardless of marital status. From this, however, a solitary Judge reasoned that a single woman should also be able to use “another” service, IVF, without having to justify that thereby a child would have to grow up without a father. His personal value-laden reasoning changed social practice, but was not subject to any political public. “Freedom of religion” legislation as potential religious persecution The terms of the discussion paper suggest that legislation on freedom of religion may limit religious practices where these are seen to conflict with what the discussion paper imputes as a “right” to “diverse sexualities”. In enshrining a very recently politically asserted value – the viewed normality of homosexuality in de facto and registered unions etc – as a right, such legislation threatens to undermine in this and other areas the religious life and practice of whole communities. It could (as the discussion paper suggests) compel a religious school, which teaches that homosexuality is non-normative, to hire or keep a teacher engaged in such practices, even though this is a living contradiction of its values (or in the Swedish case to take a headmaster married to his sibling). The State would thereby abrogate the separation of Religion and State, by quelling religion in the public square. For all the above reasons, a Religious Freedom Act should not be enacted, since it would only serve to limit the freedoms which religion presently has, and its vital contribution of values to the public square.     (*2=>OP–—ЭЮѓ, 1 G хЩхБœ‡БudWJ<2(2hHiѕOJQJ^JhQ_АOJQJ^Jhџ`dhQ_А5OJQJ^JhЇ вhТMOJQJ^JhЇ вhЇ вOJQJ^J hЁ^ВhкžOJQJ^JmH sH #hЁ^Вhкž6OJQJ^JmH sH (hr s5;CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hкž5;CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hЁ^Вhкž5;CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 7hЁ^Вhкž56;CJH*OJQJ]^JaJmH sH 4hЁ^Вhкž56;CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH >P—Юѓџ pqвгNOa‹Œ;<ЂЃшt!u!H"їяїфмммммммммммммммммдддdрgdТMdрgdQ_А $dрa$gdЇ в$a$gdr s$a$gdкžH"U"ўўG U ч ј   П Р   [ v œ Ѓ Њ З џ х ю J V ƒ Š  Ю б л н о npqElo‰ŸХЩабмн„‘ЋZgmušЂНФбіьтьіьіьіьиьиьиьіьЪьиьиьРВРьіьіьіьРьЄьиьиьиьиьиРиьіьиіРіРіšhѕ-ЄOJQJ^Jhq0QhQ_А6OJQJ^JhЇ вhЇ в6OJQJ^JhЇ вOJQJ^Jh 9˜hQ_А6OJQJ^JhкžOJQJ^Jh%ДOJQJ^JhQ_АOJQJ^JhHiѕOJQJ^J;!%,-.3KMNO`a%&?e$%<lЩл9abПРЦЧчшюя;<Ѓ­Œ–ВДшѕ%BіьтдЩьПьіЕьЇœ’ь’ь’ь’ь’ь’ь’ˆ’Е’ˆ’ˆ’ˆ’ˆ’ˆ’ˆ’ˆ’П’П’ь’П’hЇ вOJQJ^JhQ_АOJQJ^JhQ_А5OJQJ^Jhџ`dhQ_А5OJQJ^JhGzOJQJ^Jhѕ-ЄOJQJ^JhеRХ6OJQJ^JhJhJ6OJQJ^JhеRХOJQJ^JhJOJQJ^JhТMOJQJ^J4BJNY|•Бг +P­жlƒ‹ Ў'7[suyЃШвчш+BUZ„œ! !S!r!s!t!u!ёчнчнчнчЯчХчнчнчнчХчнчнчХчХчЗЌЗЌчЂч”чЂчŠЂ€Ђv€hBvјOJQJ^JhП;яOJQJ^JhТMOJQJ^Jh•hQ_А6OJQJ^Jh3*OJQJ^JhQ_А5OJQJ^JhG‡hQ_А5OJQJ^JhJOJQJ^JhG‡hQ_А6OJQJ^Jh•OJQJ^JhQ_АOJQJ^Jhi ThQ_А6OJQJ^J-u!П!о!ю!§! "G"H"I"K"L"N"O"Q"R"U"V"ёуиЭуиХНЙНЙНЙНЙХhphгjhphгUh3*hBvј5hеRХ5OJQJ^Jhr s5OJQJ^Jh3*h3*5OJQJ^Jh3*hBvј5OJQJ^JH"J"K"M"N"P"Q"S"T"U"V"§§§§§§§§§ѕdрgdТM ,1hА‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААФАФ Ф†œ@@ёџ@ Q_АNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No List>@ђ> Q_А Footnote TextCJaJ@&@Ђ@ Q_АFootnote ReferenceH*V 4џџџџ>P—Юѓџpqв г N O a ‹ Œ ;<ЂЃшtuHJKMNPQSTW˜0˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€X‘00Б@0€€X‘00Б@0€€X‘00Б@0€€X‘00БX‘00@Б G Bu!V"H"V"U"№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№џџgЈ ”Ѓ№hЈ <хiЈ <лjЈ ќXkЈ Ќє7EEW@LLWB*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€ T*+23=?NPŠХЭЊЖHHJJKKMNPQSTW—ЮЕЙ|&AKHHJJKKMNPQSTW333>O––ЭЭз з ф ф х х ц ц ч ч № № ! % , - Ѓ­NY|•Яг++DP­жl Ў'7юя§§ўў GW––ЭЭ@FGHHJJKKMNPQSTWх•J*4 Gz -ТMN[: `r sг9|Ј<‚3*кžѕ-ЄQ_А%ДеRХЇ вphг&ч&JчП;яHiѕBvјџ@€ЭЭ|gбЭЭV@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"1Œ№аhС[ж†С[憄лвІь\ /ь\ /!№ ДД4;;2ƒQ№HX №џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџN[2џџ$The Separation of Religion and State Shimon CowenCassandra Dawesўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Д˜ амє   8D d p | ˆ”œЄЌф(The Separation of Religion and StateShimon Cowen normal.dotCassandra Dawes2Microsoft Office Word@0@ИQk˜Щ@NТœQъЩ@NТœQъЩь\ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0  hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М эф/ ;' %The Separation of Religion and State Title ўџџџ !"ўџџџ$%&'()*+,ўџџџ./01234ўџџџ6789:;<ўџџџ§џџџ?ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFрBѕЃQъЩA€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1Tableџџџџ#ЏWordDocumentџџџџ.4SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ-DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ5CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq