Christian life and world view
1991 B.B. Min. 203
19. (a) Affirm, in accordance with Acts 4:18-21 and Acts 5:29, that the only valid laws of any State which may be binding upon Christians are those which do not require them to be disobedient to the Word of God.
(b) Urge all members, adherents and worshippers of the Church to be prayerfully and graciously active in lobbying politicians and other community interest groups towards a Biblical life and world view.
(c) Commend the writings and various film series produced by Rev. Francis Schaeffer to the Church at large as profitable introductory reading on the whole question of a Christian life and world view, and developing a Christian response to other life and world views.
1993 B.B. Min. 227
16. Advise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Premier, the Leader of the Queensland Opposition, with a copy to the media, that the General Assembly of the Queensland Prersbyterian Church, in considering the matter of the debate surrounding the Monarchy or a Republic; hold to the following:-
(a) That God has appointed the Civil Ruler as His Minister under the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the good order of society and the free proclamation of the Gospel (enclosing a copy of Chapters 23 and 31 of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Romans 13:1-7).
(b) That while other nations have been established as, or become a Republic, that there is no guarantee that the rights and privileges of the people of Australia, including the freedom of practices of the Christian Church, will be any better protected under a Republic than under the present system, and may very well be less so protected.
1993 B.B. Min. 227
18. 1. Note Section 47 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 provides for the addition of “international instruments” to this act.
On February 24, 1993 the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief was published in the Commonwealth Gazette. This Declaration has the force of law from that date.
The Declaration, originating in the United Nations, contains provisions which have implications for the Christian Church and for the practice of the Christian faith by its adherents. The following exceprts fall into the areas of concern:-
Article 1:
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Article 2:
1. No on shall be subject to discrimination by any State, Institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other belief.
2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.
Article 4:
1. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.
Article 5:
3. The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.
5. Practices of a religion or belief in which a child is brought up must not be injurious to his physical or mental health or to his full development, taking into account article 1, paragraph 3, of the present Declaration.
Article 6:
In accordance with article 1 of the present Declaration, and subject to the provisions of article 1, paragraph 3, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief shall include inter alia, the following freedoms:
(a) To worship or assembly in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes.
(b) To teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes.
Article 7:
The rights and freedoms set forth in the present Declaration shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that everyone shall be able to avail himself of such rights and freedoms in practice.
2. Advise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Federal Parliamentary Leader of the National Party, the Leader of the Australian Democrats in the Senate, all Queensland Members of the Senate, all Queensland Members of the House of Representatives, the Premier of Queensland, the Leader of the State Opposition, the Leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Liberal Party, and the media:-
That the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church of Queensland:
(a) is concerned that the addition of “International instruments” to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 has the capacity to overarch both the Constitution of Australia and Common Law.
(b) is concerned that the values stated in Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the “Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief” are the values of the Religion of Humanism.
(c) is concerned that the religious freedom of the Christian Church in Australia may be eroded if the requirements of the “Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief” are rigorously applied.
(d) calls on the Prime Minister to move to rescind the legislation establishing the “International Instrument” the “Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief.”
1996 B.B 55
2. Commend the article “Is Toronto Biblical?” by Rev Peter Bloomfield to Presbyteries and Sessions for their consideration. (Appendix B of the Report of the Public Questions and Communications Committee).
2004 B.B. MIN. ??
7. Write to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the leader of the National Party, the leader of the Labor Party, the leader of the Australian Democrats Party, the leader of the Greens Party, the Premier of Queensland, the leader of the National Party in Queensland, the leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, and the media, advising him that the rejection of a Judeo/Christian law base and ethical values and the embracing of multicultural pluralism as the basis of society in Australia by both the Commonwealth and the State Governments, has led to the adoption of Humanism as the primary religion of the Nation with a breakdown of the stability of the family and an increasing level of lawlessness in society.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
6. Forward letters of encouragement to the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Salt Shakers and The Australian Christian Lobby, commending them on their efforts in the light of the conviction, in December 2004, of Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot with Catch the Fires Ministries, to have the Victorian Government review the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act of 2001, with a view to amending or repealing the section dealing with Religious Vilification.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
7. (a) Note that the Board of Finance is in the process of obtaining legal opinion as to the implications of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 on the Church and its Office bearers.
(b) Counsel Office Bearers, Sessions, Presbyteries to act in such a manner in good conscience before God so as to prudently exercise public ministry.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
8. Request the Brisbane City Council to withdraw or revise the publication Islam in Brisbane so that it refrains from making any theological statements offensive to the Christian faith.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
14. Advise the Prime Minister, the Minister for Immigration, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the Parliamentary National Party, the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and the media that the Presbyterian Church of Queensland
1. Is thankful for the number of refugee places given to Sudanese fleeing the conflict in Sudan.
2. Supports the speedy processing of applications for refugee status and appeals against the non-granting of refugee status.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
18. Adopt Clause (2) of BB 2004 Minute 54 of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia as a declaration of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, with the deletion the words “of Australia” and the insertion of the words “of Queensland” in the declaration, so that it reads as follows:
We, the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, affirm our commitment to the Bible's message of the love of God for sinners and the good news of the forgiveness of sin, of a new beginning, and of eternal life. This is God's gift to those who repent of their sin and trust in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We affirm our commitment to the Bible's message that those who experience this forgiveness and new beginning gladly seek to live a life that pleases God. This means choosing a lifestyle that conforms to God's standards, which includes abstinence from sexual intercourse before marriage and faithfulness within marriage. Marriage consists of one man and one woman in a lifelong and exclusive commitment.
We affirm our commitment to the teaching of the Bible that condemns homosexual activity and desire, and therefore absolutely precludes the ordination of those continuing to practice or endorse homosexual activity and desire.
We express our deepest regret at the decisions of other denominations that allow for the ordination of those continuing to practice or endorse homosexual activity and desire, and we declare this to be a most grievous departure from the Bible's message concerning the nature of sin and the repentance necessary for salvation.
We believe that Jesus Christ is the answer to the underlying problems of those who struggle with homosexual activity and desire - such as the problem of loneliness, the longing for loving relationships, the meaning and control of our sexuality, and the quest for personal identity. As our Creator-God Jesus Christ is also our Saviour and Friend who is able to restore our humanity at every level by healing us in our inner dispositions and social relationships.
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon all those who profess faith in Him to stand with us in this commitment to God's Word and we offer any assistance that we are able to give to this end.
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
16. Note the statement from the Minister for Health on the matter of Bibles in Queensland Hospitals, particularly noting that there is no Government policy or Queensland Health policy on Bibles; and further noting that although Bibles may not be always available within bedside lockers, they are at nurses’ stations or other places and that in some situations, arrangements have been worked out by the chaplains; and authorize the Clerk, in consultation with the Moderator and the Convener of Public Questions and Communications Committee, to communicate with the Minister and the Premier the strong support of the PCQ through its Assembly, for any move to ensure that patients in public hospitals in Queensland have clear and free access to Bibles provided by the Gideons, with a preference for provision in bedside lockers.
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
19. (a) Endorse the “call for a National Day / Period of Prayer and Fasting to seek the presence of God.” as requested by the General Assembly of Australia.
(b) Recommend to each Congregation, Reformation Sunday 2006 (29th October), as the day of special focus for the “call for a National Day / Period of Prayer and Fasting to seek the presence of God.”
(c) Forward the material prepared by the Federal Church and Nation Committee for the “National day / period of prayer and fasting to seek the presence of God.” to each Session and Presbytery.
(d) Strongly encourage Presbyteries and Sessions to implement this call in their respective Congregations, having regard to their particular circumstances.
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
21. Note that the Presbyterian Church USA has made a recent decision in relation to standards pertaining to homosexuality and Church ministry.
22. Advise the PC USA that we, the PCQ, are offended that a fellow Presbyterian Church has moved away from the Biblical position whereby Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuality is offensive to God because of its immoral nature (Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:22-27).
23. Ask that the PC USA reconsider this matter in favour of the true Biblical position of denying the immoral (in this case homosexuals) any position or office in the Church whatsoever, and that any homosexuals who may attend the PC USA services be offered the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of Christ by Christians and counselling so that they may come out of this evil practice (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
25. Write to the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Media:
(a). Expressing concern at the systematic genocide of Christians and any who oppose the forced Islamisation of Irian Jaya and the exploitation by the corrupt TNI (Indonesia Militia) of Irian Jaya’s timber and mineral resources;
(b). Urge the Prime Minister to immediately take up these matters with the President of Indonesia, insisting that the actions being taken in Irian Jaya are not consistent with a country (Indonesia) that proclaims freedom of religion and a respect for the rights of individuals.
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
26. Write to the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the Media:
Expressing concern in respect to the Government’s proposal to process refugees offshore for the following reasons. Offshore processing:
1. is dehumanizing to treat refugees in this way;
2. will hinder groups such as the Christian Church providing spiritual and other resources;
3. will disadvantage refugees in assessing legal aid.
2007 B.B. MIN. 99
12. Note that the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee, issued a statement in the name of the Church, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe and requesting that the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe, so that the citizens may live in peace, with freedom of worship and association (COA 16 May 2007, Minute 06/447). (Appendix 4)
13. Request the Moderator and Clerk of Assembly to communicate with the Presbyterian Church in Zimbabwe offering moral support and asking if there is any way in which the Presbyterian Church of Queensland is able to be of assistance.
2007 B.B. MIN. 99
16. Note Assembly Paper 17, the letter from the Lord Mayor of Brisbane to the Clerk of Assembly of 25 May 2007 re “the requirements that employees of Council, in particular a member of your Church employed in our libraries, work on Sundays”.
17. Advise the Lord Mayor of Brisbane that the Church has no problems with members of the Church being engaged in working in areas of necessity or mercy on Sundays, but has strong objection to members of the Church being compelled to work in areas of employment for only the convenience of the community on Sunday; and that we are also concerned that employees who request not to be required for such Sunday work due to their Christian commitment, will become subject to disciplinary action, with the possibility of the termination of employment.
18. Forward a copy of the Lord Mayor’s letter, together with a copy of the letter to the Lord Mayor, to the Heads of Churches, for its information and action as appropriate.
2008 B.B. MIN. 102
6. Note that the Brisbane City Council continues to distribute the booklet Islam in Brisbane which includes inaccurate theological statements despite requests to edit the booklet or to remove it from circulation; and request Public Questions and Communications Committee to raise the matter once again with the Brisbane City Council and the Heads of Churches.
2008 B.B. MIN. 102
1. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and requesting the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.
22. Communicate again with the Presbyterian Church of Zimbabwe assuring the Church of the prayerful support of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland.
2009 B.B. MIN. 106
13.Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and requesting the Australian Government take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in Zimbabwe so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.
2009 B.B. MIN. 106
16.Note that the Christian Church in India has been subject to severe persecution and commend the Church to the prayerful support of Congregations.
2009 B.B. MIN. 106
Submission by the Presbyterian Church of Queensland
2009 B.B. MIN. 106
20. Note the communication to the Clerk of the Church of Scotland, issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.
12 May 2009
The Clerk
The Church of Scotland
121 George Street
EDINBURGH
EH2 4YN
Dear Sir
Re: Overture by members of the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye anet Scott Rennie’s appointment to Queen’s Cross Church
We have received reports that members of the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye have forwarded an Overture to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly anent Scott Rennie’s appointment to Queen’s Cross Church. (The Press and Journal, Article by Cameron Brooks, Gay minister faces further hurdle). http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1191397?UserKey&UserKey=
In the article, Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery member, Ivor MacDonald, minister of the Kilmuir and Stenscholl congregation, is quoted as saying: “We have lodged the overture because the Assembly will have to decide on the Scott Rennie case without having previously resolved the whole issue of whether homosexual practice is compatible with Christian living. Scott Rennie should be blocked from becoming the minister at Queen’s Cross because he has been open that he is a practising homosexual”.
The Presbyterian Church of Queensland issued the following media release on 22 June 1995:
The Presbyterian Church of Queensland affirms that -
i All homosexual practice (and lesbianism) is an utter defiling abomination before the holiness and goodness of God, never in any circumstances to be justified.
Ii To accept homosexual practice (even de facto) is a sin that the Church of Jesus Christ must publicly condemn and from which it should disassociate itself.
Iii Each individual, and the nation as a whole should uphold the Biblical standard of heterosexual chastity before marriage and heterosexual fidelity within marriage to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.
We strongly condemn the decision of the Aberdeen Presbytery to sustain the call to Rev. Scott Rennie to Queens Cross Church.
We call upon the Assembly to sustain the Overture and adopt the statement;
That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman.
May God give the Assembly Grace and Wisdom and Courage as you debate these issues.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
(Rt Rev) John Gilmour, Moderator (Rev) Ron Clark, Clerk of Assembly
cc Moderator, Church of Scotland
21. Note the statements by the Fellowship of Confessing Churches and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.
The Fellowship of Confessing Churches reported on its website before and after the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as follows -
http://www.confessingchurch.org.uk/ga09-statement/
General Assembly 2009 Statement
Statement about the coming General Assembly of 2009
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meeting in May 2009 will hear an appeal against the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen to induct into a charge a minister who has openly declared himself to be living in a homosexual relationship.
If the Assembly votes to support the Presbytery of Aberdeen, it will publicly declare such behaviour as acceptable and honourable for a leader in Christ’s church. This would mark a historic departure for our church from the teaching of the catholic Christian faith, and a radical deviation from the clear Scriptural pattern that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy—a pattern which our church has hitherto always publicly affirmed.
To now declare explicitly an active homosexual lifestyle as holy, something the Bible unambiguously calls sin, denies in the most public fashion the authority of the church’s only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Our church would thus position itself outwith the fellowship of orthodox, credal Christianity worldwide.
Such a decision, if made by the General Assembly, would be immensely damaging for the cause of Christ in Scotland and disastrous for the national church. As an unprecedented departure from both the Kirk’s supreme standard, the Scriptures, and its subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, by its highest court, this would inevitably force a crisis of communion. The majority of congregations of the Church of Scotland have no wish so to depart from orthodox Christian faith and practice, nor to be in fellowship with those who would so abandon the true Church of Jesus Christ.
We urgently alert all commissioners to the 2009 General Assembly to the extreme gravity of the situation. We urge the Assembly to support the position of those who stood to defend Christian orthodoxy in Aberdeen Presbytery, and ensure instead that the Church will apply and assert in practice its clear doctrinal position on all matters of marriage and human sexuality, by refusing to condone homosexual practice in general, and among its leaders in particular. We further urge all commissioners to support the Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye, that our General Assembly may make its will known clearly and decisively on this issue for the future.
We stand thus to publicly affirm our love, honour and deep respect for all our Christian brothers and sisters who wrestle painfully with homosexual temptation but fight faithfully to live lives of purity, following Christ Jesus as his true disciples. We assure them of all pastoral support, care and mutual encouragement as they, along with us, ‘strive…for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.’ (Hebrews 12:14)
We further wish to affirm our continuing solidarity in fellowship with Christian churches worldwide who hold and maintain the historic faith, doctrine, and discipline of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, once for all delivered to the saints in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Despite the depth of feeling across the churches of Scotland and the world about this matter, as reflected by the numbers signing this statement, the General Assembly voted (23rd May 2009) to back Aberdeen Presbytery by 326 votes to 267 (there were clearly many abstentions). This has created a precedent for all presbyteries, and sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends. It is a deeply painful day for all who love Christ and his gospel. May all in our churches remember the warning words of our Lord (Revelation 3:3), and seek earnestly to repent before it is too late.
2009 B.B. MIN. 106
22. Note the Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation issued by the Moderator and the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and incorporate a copy in the Record of the Assembly.
Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation
The terms of the inquiry
1. The central questions posed by the National Human Rights Consultation (NHRC) harbour presuppositions which themselves need to be exposed and discussed. We are initially asked: which human rights (including corresponding responsibilities) should be protected and promoted; are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted; and how could Australia better protect and promote human rights? The questions are posed in such a way as to make the ‘language of rights’ the terms in which the inquiry will be undertaken and submissions are to be made. At the outset, we express reservations about this way of proceeding. We are not convinced that the health of our community will be best served by framing the discussion as a conversation about rights, even when qualified by reference to corresponding responsibilities.
2. Rights are the language of legal entitlements. When used in a moral context (which is not, we note, the context in which the NHRC is using the term), rights are the language of moral entitlements. Our society, we acknowledge, is today dominated by the language of rights. We do not consider this to be an altogether healthy thing. Alas, specific wrongs are all too often perpetrated against persons, and we would want to be among the first, wherever possible, to support and protect such persons against such abuse (and indeed to repent and make good any abuses for which we might, alas, be responsible). But at the same time, we hear a cacophony of demands in our society for the satisfaction of individual wants and expectations, couched in the language of rights. And as individuals, we find in our own selves a tendency to make similar demands. But this is not the ethic which was taught to us by Jesus Christ. By his example and teaching, we learn that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and it is better to be personally wronged than to insist on one’s rights.
3. This does not mean that we, as a denomination of Christians, believe that there is no place for a system of law administered by civil authorities, nor that it is illegitimate for a Christian to initiate legal proceedings. But we regard the public administration of law and the initiation of legal proceedings as far from an ideal situation, and we express concern lest the National Human Rights Consultation lose sight of the fact that a society in which individuals are frequently and characteristically demanding their rights is a society that has already failed to live up to what ought to be its best aspirations.
Abstract rights and the politicisation of judges
4. Accepting, therefore, the need for us to make our submissions in the language of rights, we wish to make a second preliminary point of great importance. Rights as articulated in charters or bills of rights are necessarily abstract propositions which are meant to play a part in practical deliberations about the content of the law, its application to specific circumstances and the determination of appropriate remedies. We acknowledge that the moral reasoning necessarily required by the making of legal determinations must rest upon general propositions about appropriate behaviour. However, many have pointed out that a charter of rights, expressed in abstract language, is necessarily going to be the subject of unpredictable interpretation and that to the extent that this task is given to judges, very significant decision-making power is thus transferred from elected representatives to a small group of unelected officials chosen for their mastery of the technicalities of the law, but not necessarily better equipped to make the open-ended judgments required by the application of a charter of rights.
5. In this connection, further, we point out that judges are highly respected in our community precisely because they perform their duties with integrity and reliability in terms of well-established techniques of legal reasoning. However, if judges are given a role beyond this and are asked to pronounce upon the large social questions addressed by a charter of rights, then judges will find themselves mired in all manner of political controversies currently confined to the elected branches of government, and general societal respect for judges will be consequently undermined. Public respect for institutions like the courts is of profound importance in our society, and we express caution lest that respect be undermined by a charter of rights.
6. We make these observations, not only to repeat and endorse a commonly made but very important line of criticism of charters of rights, but also to point out that if the language of rights must be adopted, and the question of a charter of rights is to be addressed, our focus ought to be on the specific judgments about particular cases that will have to be made under a charter of rights, whether these judgments are made by elected legislatures or unelected judicial committees. Indeed, if the language of rights is to be used, we consider it much more relevant, prudent and accurate to reserve the terms ‘right’ and ‘duty’ to the concrete, legitimate expectations of a specific person in a particular set of circumstances, all things considered. However, this is not what charters of rights do. Rather, they contain references to ‘rights’ expressed in the most abstract of terms, which are in turn subject to qualifications by limitation clauses which are themselves highly abstract in formulation. We certainly consider that, if a charter of rights is to be enacted, its content (in terms of the abstract rights which it actually contains or does not contain, and the language in which its qualification clauses are recorded) is a vital and important issue, which will have consequences either way. But we express concern and significant reservations about the idea that, provided the utmost care is taken, an appropriate charter of rights can be drafted, provided we get the wording right. In our submission what will matter most is not what the charter says, but how the charter is interpreted and applied, whether by the judiciary, the legislature or the government and its agencies. No matter how careful the drafting of a charter of rights, the words used are not always or even ordinarily going to control or dictate its application in contentious cases.
7. Indeed, every charter right will imply a corresponding duty, and in imposing a corresponding duty, a charter of rights will imply a recalibration of the freedoms of others. Rights and duties are in this sense a zero-sum game: there will be winners and there will be losers. It is not at all evident to us that our society has, as a whole, drawn the lines in inappropriate places. In what follows, therefore, the submissions we wish to make concern a set of very specific issues which are likely to be determined within the purview of a federal charter of rights, should one be enacted. The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is profoundly concerned that a charter of rights will open up these issues to determination in a manner that is far from just or appropriate in the circumstances of our society. Our submissions are made in order to draw attention to what we judge to be the most just and appropriate resolution of those issues, and we call on the National Human Rights Consultation and the Australian Government to ensure that no charter of rights which could possibly lead to outcomes contrary to these be enacted. We leave it to the judgement of the National Human Rights Consultation and the Australian Government whether the drafting of such a charter of rights is possible, but we express serious doubts about whether this could possibly be the case and we will strongly oppose any proposed charter which we consider makes such deleterious outcomes possible, let alone probable.
8. Before turning to those issues, let us finally make clear that our expressions of concern are not based upon any naive sense of satisfaction with the status quo or the current condition of our democratic institutions of government. Indeed, our society is currently plagued by widespread disillusionment and a sense of alienation among ordinary people from our institutions of government. But in our judgement, a charter of rights, which would transfer fundamental decision-making powers away from the elected branches and towards an unelected, select group of highly privileged individuals will not serve to address these pressing problems of disillusionment and alienation; rather, it will only exacerbate them. Our vision of a healthy, properly operating democracy is, on the contrary, one in which people generally feel able to participate meaningfully in their own self-government.
9. A charter of rights is generally embraced by those who believe that such a document will redress all the ills perceived to be suffered by minority groups, whether of race, creed or colour. However, many such issues lie beyond the scope of a charter of rights unless the charter extends into the very doubtful field of economic and social rights. We respectfully submit that such issues are best addressed within a vibrant democracy in which citizens feel able to participate meaningfully in public deliberation about such issues, and in which the results of those deliberations are given effect in duly enacted legislation and government policy. A single example of unfair treatment of certain classes of non-citizens illustrates the point, namely the different position of a person on a professional temporary work visa on one hand and a refugee or displaced person on the other. Workers on a professional temporary work visa are not given a Medicare card even though they pay tax on their income and GST on all purchases; they can apply for a Medicare card on being accepted for permanent residency, a status for which they have to qualify by being in the country for 12 months and working the whole time. By contrast, those entering the country as refugees or displaced persons are immediately given CentreLink benefits including a Health Care Card and a Medicare card. Unfairness in treatment like this is unlikely to be effectively and efficiently addressed by a charter of rights, and is best addressed through public debate and legislative change.
10. In this context, we find highly remarkable the recent suggestion by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission that the Commission, rather than the courts, be given a watching brief and be empowered to make reports to Parliament about cases where legislation could not be interpreted in a manner compatible with charter rights. Granting this power to an even less democratic, less visible and less publicly accountable body as the Human Rights Commission would only make matters even worse.
Issue 1: The conscience of the medical practitioner
11. We draw attention to recent legislation in Victoria placing medical practitioners under a legal obligation to refer patients seeking abortions to suitably qualified medical practitioners able to provide what is euphemistically called abortion ‘services’. We note that this enactment came into being under the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, and we express concern lest a national charter of rights fail in the same way to protect the capacity of medical practitioners to act on their consciences in declining to make such references. A national charter might also provide grounds upon which individuals may claim that they have a right to be referred to a medical practitioner willing to provide such services and that medical practitioners have a duty to do so. We submit in the strongest possible terms that a medical practitioner should be free to act on his or her conscience without pressure or interference of any kind to refer patients to a practitioner willing to provide medical ‘services’ which the first mentioned practitioner regards as inherently immoral.
Issue 2: Abortion
12. We note that the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities also contains an explicit provision which seeks to ensure that the charter will not be used in any way to resolve the issue of whether and in what circumstances abortions are legally permissible. We wish to affirm in the most emphatic terms that we believe that in every relevant sense human life begins at conception and that it is the most grave of injustices to extinguish that life save in circumstances where that is an unavoidable and unintended secondary consequence of the application of procedures necessary to preserve a mother’s life or, in the case of multiple pregnancy, necessary to preserve the life of another child or children in utero. We would resist in the strongest terms any provision in a federal charter of rights which made it possible to argue that any expressed right (such as a right to privacy) entailed a specific legal right to procure an abortion in circumstances other than those just mentioned. We also express concern lest a federal charter of rights be enacted in which the lives of the unborn are hypocritically excluded from protection.
Issue 3: Exemptions from antidiscrimination laws
13. We are aware of enquiries currently being undertaken in Victoria which are revisiting the question of the existence and scope of current exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations from the general application of antidiscrimination laws. As a denomination of Christians, The Presbyterian Church of Queensland strongly affirms the truth that all human beings are made in the image of God and that God is no respecter of persons, whether of race, professed religion, gender and so on, but that his mercy in Christ is offered to all, no matter who they are and no matter what they may have done. At the same time, however, we affirm that moral discernment is intrinsic to the practice of living a just and upright life, and we note that all human beings who profess to act justly cannot avoid the responsibility of moral discernment. In previous generations, the words discernment and discrimination were used interchangeably, but in latter times the word discrimination has been singled out to refer to what are deemed to be inappropriate and unjust forms of distinction-drawing between persons or particular behaviours. We have no quibble with the mere fact that a gap has developed between the way in which the two words have come to be used. We acknowledge that in many circumstances discrimination is unjust and inappropriate, but we also affirm (as with the vast bulk of people) that moral discernment is an unavoidable responsibility we have before God and each other.
14. We are conscious that the critical issue here lies in the boundaries between appropriate moral discernment and inappropriate prejudice and discrimination. And we are conscious that, as a denomination of Christians, our judgements about those boundary lines differ from those of at least some others. We note, in this context, that the boundary lines that have been drawn within the antidiscrimination laws of the Commonwealth and the States are the result of political decisions which reflect the views of elected representatives who do not necessarily share the views of our denomination. Nonetheless, as taught by apostolic authority, we submit to the laws of our nation and recognise that those laws will not always draw the lines that we would consider most just and appropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves as a nation.
15. In this context, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland expresses profound concern lest the National Human Rights Consultation recommend a charter of rights or the adoption of policies which would alter the balance currently struck in Australia’s antidiscrimination laws, particularly in the form of the exemptions currently enjoyed by religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations under relevant federal and state enactments. We submit in the strongest possible terms that the existing exemptions should continue to apply, and where necessary be extended so as to apply, to religious institutions and religiously motivated organisations, by which we mean to include primary and secondary schools, tertiary colleges and universities, welfare organisations and all manner of other associations which have been formed to perform (or which in the view of their members have become organisations which exist in order to perform) functions or provide a group environment which their members regard as legitimately religious in nature, ethos or purpose. We are aware of those who would wish to curtail our freedoms in this respect and we call on the National Human Rights Consultation to uphold our freedoms in this regard.
Issue 4: Religious vilification laws
16. We also express extreme concern about the existence and scope of religious vilification laws in several of the Australian states. In the first place, we do not believe that laws prohibiting certain types of speech are a prudent or appropriate way to try to prevent social disharmony, particularly in religious matters. Religious beliefs and practices are subjects that need to be the subject of open communication. In saying this, we do not of course approve of the use of language which incites violence, hatred or discrimination (in the sense described above). But we observe that religious vilification laws, by the very nature of the kinds of communications to which they apply, are more likely to exacerbate than to minimise the existence of religious conflict. The notorious Catch the Fire Ministries case in Victoria illustrates this very clearly.
17. We therefore submit that while there is a place for laws which make communications which incite violence or other illegal behaviour themselves unlawful, we strongly question those who would suggest that the ordinarily criminal laws relating to offences of conspiracy and incitement to engage in illegal behaviour are somehow insufficient for this purpose. At the very most, if there are to be religious vilification laws, they ought to be limited to communications which have the intent of inciting violence or other illegal acts, and should have all of the careful qualifications and protections which ordinarily apply to the prosecution and conviction of persons accused of criminal offences.
Issue 5: Evangelism and proselytisation
18. We use the terms ‘evangelism’ and ‘proselytisation’ not because we intend to imply a distinction in meaning but because both terms are frequently used to refer to speech and other communicative acts which are motivated by the desire to inform people about or persuade people to adhere to particular religious beliefs, the performance of particular religious activities and the conduct of a certain way of life. We strongly believe that people should be free, within the confines of the ordinary criminal and civil law, to hold religious beliefs and to act on those beliefs in various ways, including through evangelism and proselytisation. However we express doubt about whether the enactment of a charter of rights containing an abstract right to religious freedom is the most appropriate way to ensure that this is the case, especially in the light of the need of a charter of rights to express in very abstract terms certain grounds upon which the expressed rights may be justifiably qualified or limited. What we particularly wish to stress is our interest in religious freedom, including the freedom to engage in religious activities and the conduct of everyday life in terms of one’s religious beliefs and convictions. We also wish to emphasise that this must extend to communication, again within the confines of the ordinary civil and criminal law, of one’s beliefs with others, with a view to providing information and persuading others to live and believe likewise. Religious freedom must not be understood as a freedom to be immune from the lawful efforts of those who would seek to convert us to their belief system and religious way of life. We have probably all experienced persons from some particular religious group knock on our doors offering information and wishing to engage in conversation about their religious beliefs. We see no reason at all why this practice should be the subject of special legal regulation – apart, as we have said, from the application of the ordinary civil and criminal law.
19. In this context, we again express concern lest the enactment of an abstract charter of rights provide grounds upon which certain expressed rights (again, perhaps, the right to privacy, or indeed, a certain interpretation of the right to religious freedom) be interpreted to give individuals the legal right to be ‘free’ of the otherwise lawful evangelistic efforts of others. We do affirm that those who evangelise or proselytise should indeed act in respectful and non-overbearing manner, but we do not think that such conduct should become the subject of special legal regulation, either through specific statutes, government policies or indirectly through a charter of rights.
2010 B.B. MIN. 99
12. Write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a copy to the media, expressing concern as to the state of affairs of human rights abuse in relation to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly (in particular such abuses against Christians) in China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, The Sudan and Zimbabwe; requesting the Australian Government to take all appropriate action in addressing the situation in these countries, so that the citizens may live in peace with freedom of worship and of association.
Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century
Introduction
The federal government has rightly expressed a desire to see social cohesion and harmony promoted within the Australian community. As a denomination of Christians, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland similarly seeks to promote peace, justice and harmony within our society. Jesus Christ, reminding us of the teaching of Moses, instructs us that we ought to love our neighbour as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27) and indeed explained that this means we ought to love, rather than hate, even those who would make themselves our enemies (Matthew 5:43-46). Expounding the teaching of Christ, the Apostle Paul teaches us to bless those who curse us, never to pay back evil for evil to anyone, to respect what is right in the sight of all men and, as far as possible and so far as it depends on us, to be at peace with all men (Romans 12:17-18).
As Christians, we have a message of good news – the love of God expressed in the sacrificial life of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ – to share with all. We know that the message of God's redeeming grace is not received by all, but we have no interest in coercion of any kind. The Westminster Confession of Faith, to which our denomination subscribes, teaches that ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men’ (WCF 20:2). We are committed therefore to speaking and living what we believe to be the truth, but it all times ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15) and expressing this love through lives of service and compassion directed especially to the sick, the imprisoned and the stranger (Matthew 25:34-40; Luke 10:29-37).
Consistent with these principles, Christians of many denominations, including those of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, have worked hard to contribute to the well-being of the Australian community. It is surely not necessary to document in detail the many ways in which Christians have provided social welfare services, health care, education, and much else, all contributing fundamentally to the social fabric of the community. We therefore believe strongly in the principle of freedom of religion, meaning the freedom of religious individuals and groups to put their religious beliefs into practice. We are concerned that there are some sectors in Australian society which do not respect or even understand the valuable contribution that Christians have made. It would be extremely harmful for our society if ‘freedom of religion’ were to be understood as ‘freedom from religion’. There is a real sense in which every perspective is ‘religious’, even the humanistic. We affirm the freedom of individuals and groups to express their religious beliefs in practice within the proper constraints of law.
The following submissions are made, therefore, praying to God on behalf of all who are in authority in this nation, that we may be at liberty to lead quiet and peaceful lives in all godliness and dignity (I Timothy 2:2). Several of our submissions are strongly critical of various policies recently adopted in certain Australian jurisdictions. These criticisms, though serious, are voiced in a spirit of cooperation and concern for the well-being of the people of this country.
1: Evaluation of 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief
1. What are areas of concern regarding the freedom to practice and express faith and beliefs, within your faith community and other such communities?
Our major area of concern regarding the freedom to practice and express faith and beliefs concerns the entirely counterproductive impact of several government measures ostensibly intended to protect and maintain religious freedom and inter-religious harmony. In particular, we express grave concern about the practical impact of religious vilification laws. Our special concern is with religious vilification laws which prohibit communicative acts which are neither intended nor likely to encourage acts of physical violence and which give private parties and organisations the capacity to institute complaints, initiate investigations or pursue legal or quasi-legal proceedings. Where such religious vilification laws have been introduced, such laws have been – and are likely to continue to be – used by some religious bodies in order to:
- · particular religious beliefs and practices from open debate and legitimate criticism;
- · pressure on the adherents of other religions to refrain from engaging in robust discussion of competing truth claims;
the adherents of other religions who engage in religious debate and discussion as engaging in unlawful and antisocial activities;
the freedom of adherents of other religions to exercise aspects of their religious liberty, including the liberty to freely propagate the tenets of their religion, and to compare those tenets with those of alternative religions.[1]
Religious vilification laws apply the organised power of the state to intervene in interreligious debate. Civil courts and tribunals are not appropriate venues for the adjudication of such disputes. Religious vilification laws involve an illegitimate entanglement of the state and state power in religious matters. Even where the sanctions are entirely civil in nature, the threat of litigation, including the personal and financial costs of litigation, and of being required to publish written apologies in the media, constitute what are in substance (although not in form) pecuniary penalties hardly distinguishable in practical effect from the imposition of fines and similar criminal penalties.
Concern is also expressed that religious vilification laws typically allow special dispensations from the general application of the law to artists, scientists, scholars and the media. We see no compelling justification for this special privileging, although we note, with some irony, the similarity between the treatment of these particular professions today and role of the court-prophets of biblical times, themselves captive to the political imperatives of those in power at the time.
2. Have new issues emerged since this report was published in 1998 relating to expression of faith?
As a denomination based in Queensland, we express concern about Brisbane City Council’s brochure entitled Islam in Brisbane. It is not unlikely that 1998 HREOC Report gave rise to the publication. Our concern is that Christian and Jewish beliefs have been misrepresented in it.[2] There are very clear distinctions between Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths, which the publication overlooks. Peace between religions cannot be obtained by artificially eliminating distinctions. When public money is used by government agencies to misrepresent religious beliefs, this is more likely to aggravate, rather than ameliorate, religious conflict.
3. Is there adequate protection against discrimination based on religion or belief, and protection of ability to discriminate in particular contexts?
There is currently insufficient protection of the ability of religious believers and religious organisations to engage in legitimate discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs and convictions. The existing exemptions for religious organisations from the general effect of antidiscrimination laws, particularly on the grounds of religious belief and personal practices and lifestyle should be maintained, and indeed expanded to protect religious believers and religious organizations who conscientiously wish to conduct businesses, pursue callings and provide social services as an expression of their religious convictions.
4. How are federal and state and territory governments managing incitement to religious hatred, and the question of control and responsibility?
In connection with our response to question 1 above, those State and Territory governments that have introduced religious vilification laws have made a very grave error of judgment. Those jurisdictions that have refrained from doing so, have acted wisely and prudently.
5. How well have the recommendations of Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief been implemented by the various state and federal governments?
This question presupposes that there is an automatic imperative that Article 18 must be implemented by Australian governments. We recognise that at international law, Australia is a party to the ICCPR and has undertaken international obligations in that respect. However, we do not believe that international treaties should be implemented automatically or uncritically. While we acknowledge the importance of many of the lofty aspirations expressed in various international human right standards, we are conscious that international treaties such as the ICCPR came about through negotiations between states parties whose motives were not all entirely above reproach and that the decisions of the Human Rights Committee, for example, have not always been immune from political manipulation. The existence of Article 18 does not exempt the political institutions of our country from the responsibility to exercise discernment and sound judgment when approaching the question of its domestic implementation.
2: Religion and the State – the Constitution, roles and responsibilities
Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act states that:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
The Constitution
1. Is this section of the Constitution an adequate protection of freedom of religion and belief?
Within the bounds of the Commonwealth constitution, Christianity has played a vital role in supporting our society’s moral framework. Biblical beliefs are behind the development and health of our country, the development of all our major political parties and trade unions, our first schools and notions such as brotherhood and mateship. In the 19th Century, when science had the world believing aboriginal people were another species, Christians recognised them as brothers and preserved their lives.[3]
Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution as currently interpreted by the High Court provides broadly adequate protection for freedom of religion and belief in this country. The framers of the Australian Constitution limited the scope of section 116 to the Commonwealth deliberately, believing that it was beyond their remit to propose substantial changes to the State constitutions, and expressing confidence in parliamentary institutions to adequately protect individual freedoms, including freedom of religion. We do not support any changes being made either to the federal or the state constitutions in this respect. As the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution recognized, it is inappropriate for a federal constitution to contain provisions dealing directly with the powers of the States in matters unrelated to the task of federating the Australian colonies into a federal commonwealth. Altering the language of s 116 would have the potential to destabilize the approach that the High Court has taken in its interpretation. We would be particularly concerned lest that introduce an interpretation of s 116 which tends to marginalise religion or to exclude it from the public sphere along the lines that the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution have been interpreted.
2. How should the Australian Government protect freedom of religion and belief?
We are extremely concerned about the possibility that the Australian government will take steps to alter the existing constitutional and legal treatment of religious matters, whether in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution or in the form of a Religious Freedom Act. We see no urgent need for change, and we are genuinely fearful of the unintended consequences of further government intervention in these fields. The grave mistakes made by some of the State and Territory governments in intervening in religious matters in recent years do not fill us with confidence concerning the capacity of the federal government to avoid these or other mistakes.
The scope of the Religious Freedom Act proposed in the Report is not entirely clear. It was recommended that the Act should apply to ‘individuals, corporations, public and private bodies and all other legal persons who may be subject to Commonwealth legislation’. A Commonwealth Religious Freedom Act could not bind the Commonwealth itself, as the powers of the Commonwealth are conferred by the Constitution and a Commonwealth statute cannot bind future Parliaments. However, the States are legal persons who can be made subject to Commonwealth legislation. Accordingly, it seems that the legal effect of a Religious Freedom Act, if validly enacted, would be to control or limit the powers of the States, as well as to place obligations upon public bodies and private organizations and individuals.
The legitimacy of any attempt to bind the State Parliaments in this respect is seriously in doubt. We recognise that the High Court of Australia has so interpreted the external affairs power to enable the Commonwealth to legislate to implement Australia's obligations under international treaties on any subject matter whatsoever, but we observe that this decision was arrived at by a closely divided court and, although now well-established in law, has been accompanied by political controversy ever since. We also acknowledge that the Commonwealth has used this power to enact various anti-discrimination laws. Despite these developments, to rely on the external affairs power to enact a Religious Freedom Act would involve the Commonwealth in an unprecedented interference with the self-governing capacities of the people of each State, particularly in relation to religious matters. Only some of the Australian States and Territories have chosen to adopt legislative protections for rights, and none of these provisions strictly bind the legislative powers of the Parliaments. For the Commonwealth Parliament to impose Religious Freedom Act on the States would be to nullify the deliberate decision taken by several States not to adopt one themselves.
3. When considering the separation of religion and state, are there any issues that presently concern you?
We are very concerned about a tendency towards greater government entanglement with religious matters, particularly through religious vilification laws, antidiscrimination laws and bills or charters of rights. We believe there is a tendency of government to overreact to perceived threats to religious harmony in this country caused by perceptions of increasing religious diversity. The fundamental causes of religious harmony are themselves personal, social and ultimately religious. Speaking for the particular Christian faith community to which we adhere, we are conscious of the lessons that have been learned by those of Christian faith through reflection on the Christian scriptures, against a long history of shifting relationships between church and state, concerning the need to maintain tolerant and loving attitudes towards those of other faiths.
When considering the separation of religion and state, we again draw attention to the publication Islam in Brisbane as an issue of concern. This document should have been written without the misrepresentation of Christian and Jewish beliefs. A government department should not be permitted to sponsor a document that presences as fact something which is not a fact, and to do so at the expense of tax payers and persons of other faiths. The Council has been asked to edit this document but has refused to do so. The Council seems to have allied itself with one small part of the community with no regard for the rest of the community. This document does not “ensure the wider community is better informed about Islam and Muslim ways of life.” (Islam in Brisbane) It gives a false impression about the links between Christianity, Judaism and Islam and false grounds for peace.
4. Do religious or faith-based groups have undue influence over government and/or does the government have undue influence over religious or faith based groups?
We do not generally think that religious and faith-based groups have undue influence over government. We endorse efforts by those of religious faith to encourage governments to maintain decent moral standards, and we have no pressing concerns about government assistance to religious schools and government support of religious charitable organizations.
5. Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?
Paradoxically, we do not believe that a legislated national charter of rights would enhance religious freedom in this country. We appreciate the distinction that is drawn between constitutional and legislative bills of rights, as well as of the varying roles that can be given to the courts, in their relationship to parliaments, under such schemes. We submit that all forms of bills of rights constitute an increase in power accorded to the courts, and we are deeply skeptical about the capacity of court-oriented processes to enhance religious freedom or promote religious harmony. Institutions of government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, generally do best when they do least to interfere in religious matters. While we are fearful of excessive executive and legislative interference with freedom of religion, we are equally fearful of excessive judicial interference in such matters. This may seem paradoxical for those tutored in contemporary liberal-democratic discourse, but we express simple skepticism of the capacity of liberal institutions of government to further enhance religious liberty in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves at this particular point in time in this country. We are generally satisfied with the current modus vivendi, and we express sincere concern about proposals to alter the current religio-political settlement.
3: Religion and the State - practice and expression
1. What are some consequences of the emergence of faith-based services as major government service delivery agencies?
Christian faith based services have always existed in this country and continue to grow. However, we express grave concern that Christian based medical services are being challenged by changes in the law requiring medical practitioners to compromise their moral and biblical convictions in the way that they conduct their medical practices. Christian medical staff cannot in good conscience encourage, carry out or facilitate abortions. The recent amendment to the law in Victoria requiring medical practitioners to refer patients to practitioners who will carry out an abortion is a major and very grave concern.
2. 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?
Christian faith based services work with civil governments in meeting needs with in our communities. Private Christian schools provide significant assistance in the education of our nation’s children and youth. Without private schools governments would have a far more expensive task in the provision of education. Christian chaplaincy services play a vital role in many places including schools, prisons and hospitals. Many Christian faith based services are run by volunteers. The government could better accommodate the needs of faith groups by not burdening them with a barrage of “must read literature” when they clearly demonstrate a high standard and quality of service provision.
The current legislation relating to burial practice and autopsy practice is adequate so far as we are concerned.
4: Security issues in the aftermath of September 11
1. a) Have the changes in federal and state laws affected any religious groups, and if so how?
b) How should this be addressed?
2. How should the Government balance physical security and civil liberties?
3. 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.
4. a) Is there religious radicalism and political extremism in Australia?
b) If so, what are the risks to Australia?
The federal and State governments have, in general, responded appropriately to the terrorist threat. National security is vitally important in maintaining the freedoms we enjoy and the freedoms that immigrants seek. In this context, however, it is important that Muslim groups do not get preferential treatment for the improvement of their educational and work opportunities. All immigrants of non-English speaking background should receive equal assistance.
The Christian perception of Muslims is naturally coloured by the humiliating restrictions and persecution suffered by so many of their fellow Christians in Muslim countries. Christians of genuine faith do not, however, engage in hostilities or violence against other religious groups. As Christians in this country, we recognise the biblical injunction to do justice for the alien and sojourner in our midst (Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 27:19). However, immigrants of all religious persuasions must also accept Australian institutions and both the Christian and secular roots of our society. They also must accept that the government has to be vigilant in protecting the Australian public from terrorist activity.
5. Can you provide any examples of social exclusion in regard to religion? How and why do issues of social exclusion develop?
Evangelical and reformed Christians face social exclusion frequently in contemporary Australian society. This, again, may seem paradoxical, given the fact that Australia is thought to be a traditionally Christian nation, has preserved many Christian traditions, and most Australians still profess to be Christian. However, exclusion occurs, often subtly but nonetheless forcefully in many areas of social life, including:
· Radio and television programs, newspaper and journal articles which mock and denigrate the Christian faith;
· University courses taught by lecturers who are openly anti-Christian in their teaching;
· The way in which the question of origins is taught in schools, with materialistic evolution being taught as scientific fact and creationist and intelligent design perspectives routinely dismissed.
Notwithstanding this level of social exclusion, which has to be experienced to be understood, we do not call upon governments to take special action to intervene, as we accept that those of anti-religious or anti-Christian sentiment will inevitably treat Christians in this way. We only ask for the freedom to practice our faith as we seek to demonstrate to all people the love of Christ in the hope that they, too, might embrace his offer of salvation.
5: The interface of religious, political and cultural aspirations
1. a) How would you describe the interface between religion and politics and cultural aspirations in contemporary Australia?
b) What issues does this include?
2. How should government manage tensions that develop between aspirations?
3. How do you perceive gender in faith communities?
4. Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?
5. What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?
6. Citizenship and Australian values have emerged as central issues, how do you balance integration and cultural preservation?
7. What are reasonable expectations to have of citizens’ civic responsibility, rights, participation and knowledge?
8. Is there a role for religious voices, alongside others in the policy debates of the nation?
The 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief adopted the following definition of religion (Recommendation 2.5):
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… Religion or belief should be defined as a particular collection of ideas and/or practices…
The definition should not apply to all beliefs but only to those that clearly involve issues of personal conviction, conscience or faith.
Religion is centrally a matter of personal conviction, conscience or faith. It is not possible for those of sincere religious convictions to separate their beliefs from their daily practices, including the performance of their responsibilities as citizens in this nation. Sincere Christians cannot avoid speaking as Christians when they engage in democratic deliberation and debate. There is thus clearly a role for religious voices in the policy debates of the nation. We live in a democratic society and persons of all perspectives should be part of the policy debates that shape our country and our future.
6: Technology and its implications
How have the new technologies affected the practice and dissemination of religious and faith communities?
Has new technology had an impact on your religion and/or your religious practice?
What issues are posed by new religions and spiritualities using new technologies?
Is your freedom to express your religion or beliefs hindered or helped by current media policies and practices, considering reporting, professional knowledge, ownership, and right of reply?
What impact do the media have on the free practice of religion in Australia and the balanced portrayal of religious beliefs and practice?
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?
We observe that news media outlets often turn to mainstream liberal church organizations when seeking the “Christian perspective” on matters, and that journalists and editors often fail to present well-rounded reporting. Mainstream media also tends to support particular political interests and often mocks alternative views on many issues, such as ‘intelligent design’, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. As a body of Christians, we are often conscious that positions that we hold are attacked by elements of the media that we have very little if any opportunity to reply.
Technology increases the accessibility of information generally and makes it available in many different languages. Technology also increases the amount of mis-information which we must also deal with, as individuals and in our churches, school and communities. Technology also increases the avenues through which abuse and assault can be channelled but not necessarily because of religious persuasion or affiliation. Moral values are definitely under attack, with minors being exposed to inappropriate material through the internet and mobile phones.
7: Religion, cultural expression and human rights
1. Is there satisfactory freedom of cultural expression and practice within the normative social and legal framework?
At present there are satisfactory freedoms however we are concerned that as a result of the FRB project those freedoms may be negatively impacted.
2. Do service providers in your state or territory support the right to cultural security, safety and competence?
3. How can the cultural aspirations and human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders be met?
Christianity has no racial or ethnic boundaries. As a denomination, we work hard to support and encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ of all racial and ethnic boundaries. We are especially conscious of the special material needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and have worked hard to provide them with support. We draw attention to the extent to which it is faith-oriented people who provide much of the support and comfort to Australia’s indigenous peoples.
4. What are the issues impacting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities at present, and proposed solutions?
5. Are there any issues in regard to participation in the faith community for people with disabilities?
6. How is diverse sexuality perceived within faith communities?
7. How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?
8. 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?
Religious organizations should be given the freedom to discriminate where warranted and required by biblical principles. Christian faith communities are not permitted according to biblical directives to admit to office those who practice any form of sexual immorality, such as fornication or homosexuality. Secular humanists and atheists need to understand and respect long established religious beliefs, instead of expressing intolerance towards religious institutions which cannot employ persons living lifestyles that are clearly counter to the belief and tradition of a religious group.
9. Do you consider environmental concern to be an influence shaping spiritualities and value systems?
The Bible itself provides guidelines for appropriate interaction, protection and care of our environment.