The phrase religious freedom or freedom of belief does not come up once in the bible

Transcription

1 When the early Christians are brought before the authorities there is not one account of them in the bible appealing to their rights to religious freedom The phrase religious freedom or freedom of belief does not come up once in the bible Not as though the bible is silent about persecution, or states responsibilities or even rights of citizens We have multiple trials of Paul recorded, Peter and John before Sanhedrin,Stephen before mob - not once do they say - as Mel Gibson might - give me freedom Book of revelation written naming Roman Empire as beast persecuted church and they are told how to overcome - not by appealing to freedom So are the modern cries for Freedom something church has wrong. Have we just bought into worldly way of thinking about our rights? Let s think about Peter and John Acts 4 comission - go out and tell Rulers - don t speak in his name Conflict of authorities - is it better to obey you or god They accepted consequences No language here for freedom but all the building blocks are needed Distinctively christian way of thinking that says ruler is not god I owe ruler loyalty but I owe god deeper loyalty Divine rule & a secular rule - 2 kingdoms? 2 spheres? Limit on power and space for conscience - over 2000 years Christians would express that in different ways but the crack between secular and divine power opens the door to thinking about the freedom people should have So Tertullian 2nd c says let one man worship god another Jupiter, let another lift supplicant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of fides, let one - if you take this view of it- count in prayer the clouds and another the ceiling panels, let one consecrate his own life to his god and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a. Further ground for the charge of irreleigion by taking away RELIGIOUS LIBERTY and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to any inclination but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered to him

2 Tertullian - it is a fundamental human right a privilege of nature that Every man should worship according to his convictions...it is assuredly not part of religion to compel religion Lactantius Edict of Milan Let s jump forward 2000years to today November 15 is the anniversary of the announcement of the Postal Survey - Australia would have same sex marriage. Following the passage of legislation extending the right to marry to same-sex couples, the Turnbull Government commissioned a panel of experts the Ruddock Review to consider the state of religious liberty in Australia. You would think a year on we would have a Report to look at, legislation in place Certainly in planning tonight we put it so far off that surely it will be done And yet here we are The terms of reference were very helpfully broad. They did not mention marriage. They were to look at Commonwealth state and territory laws. The panel was a good one. The time was tight to turnaround submissions. But the submissions came in. 16k or so. Which is enormous response. And they mostly weren t form letters or the work of activists. Rather they were heartfelt page or two. I say this from reading hundreds. The report went to the government in May. One of the things that is apparent from the submissions is that people could not agree whether there was a problem. That is unusual for an inquiry into legal reform. Usually there will be differences over a solution but agreement on the problem. Not so here. Instead the submissions mostly fall into 2 camps. 1. All is well camp. There are no threats to freedom - you can hold a belief, you are free to worship in church/synagogoue/ mosque. Put bluntly by a politician who said where are the pastors in prison? Some of these submissions went on to say maybe you have a little bit too much freedom. 2. Many of those submissions then went on to spell out the privileged and protected position the churches and faith based groups had held. Many submissions from same sex couples and sexual minorities saying the church should not enjoy exemptions under anti-discrimination laws. That all this talk of religious freedom really belongs in scare quotes, it is cover for bigotry. Religious people are free to worship but they are not free to

3 impose their beliefs on others. Whatever religious freedom is, it cannot prevail over the rights of an individual to live their own life. 3. The only concessions to religious freedom might be that ministers won t be forced to marry against conscience or use a church for same sex wedding. 4. This view of religious freedom sees it in opposition to sexual equality rights - a zero sum gain. So there is s protest in Sydney for the anniversary that says: Morrison's "religious exemptions" is nothing but a disgusting attempt to enshrine homophobic and transphobic discrimination in law. One year ago, a majority of people fought and voted for EQUAL rights and treatment for LGBTI people. On the anniversary of our victory, we need to stand up once again against homophobia and transphobia! 5. The catchcry here is no exemptions for equality Equality is such a compelling justice cause that it should not have shadowlands where people ar free to ignore it. The glorious future of the equality revolution which will end the hatred and attacks on dignity will come when the opponents of the revolution have no place to hide 6. You need to feel the power of this argument. It is built around the great australian virtue of equality - a fair go. Allowing people to be who they are. It is driven by commitment to justice and deliberately shapes itself as the successor to great civil rights and human rights movements of the past. Here is the cause for our time. And there has been terrible treatment of gays in the past - have suffered unfairly because of their love. The plebiscite result in part showed the power of this rhetoric. To oppose it for many seemed inexplicable - even within the churches many of the youth could not understand the conservative position. Many who might oppose we re silent because it seemed like it was not ok to say no. Seemed like it was something that would bring social shame. And globally think how persecution impacts church 2. The second camp in submissions said there are grave threats to freedom - most spoke about marriage (given timing that was inevitable) but Many went far beyond it. These submissions didn t look just at what happens inside your head (beliefs) or inside a church (worship) but something much bigger - not just having a belief but being able to live it out, and doing it in community with others, something that couldn t stop at a church door. There were specific concerns about free speech, parents rights, charities, the independence of schools from the state in determining their beliefs, policies and practices.

4 This expansive character is paralleled in international law, so Article 18 ICCPR says - Article 18 of the ICCPR states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 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. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Notice how different this view of freedom is? Instead of a narrow Freedom to worship that stops at church door Which view is right? What should the law do? The marriage debate triggered this review but the issues are much deeper They actually go to how it is we should organise society - what rights people should have and how different rights interact with each other There was a brilliant piece 2weeks a go by Dr Joel Harrison ABC religion and ethics - also pointed to these 2. Views of freedom and said there are 2 rival ways of structuring society && saying what is really good 1.liberal equality is the highest good - all about the individual having the right to express who they are. If groups like churches or faith bas3d schools or charities got in the way of individual rights then they are the problem that state has to solve. What counts is individual right. State role is to see that brought to bear. Sometimes remarkable conclusions - AHRC have previously argued for sunset clauses for male priesthood. Or ACT where exemptions are loopholes - arbitrary errors in derafting

5 If this view prevails and finds its way into law then the state will look to enforce all individual equality claims against churches and faith based groups. ACT law effectively moves faith based schools into the sa,me realm as public schools. Pr sbyterian s hools should be allowed to be presbyterian. 2.social pluralism - second way of structuring society. Recognises we are not just individuals but we gather together collectively especially when it comes to matters of faith. And religious belief is not just me and god but us and others - love for neighbour - gathering together Very corporate Life together No coincidence that faiths build schools and hospitals and charities and meet together each week Different account of dignity - diversity and love of even enemy Different account of freedom Not just absence of restraint But also pursuing good together In order to do that you need to allow these institutions that sit between individual and the state to work out their rules, figure out what binds them together, what are membership require,ents The state jumping in and saying you must be like these groups who do not share that belief will actually threatened the existence of that group Understanding these 2 positions is key I think There is a contest of ideas about how the law should function but also how society should be structured To speak to the existing legal regime: Remarkably little protection of religious freedom We are not like the French who organise state on v strict secular terms Not like Americans whose first freedom is liberty Not like UK where Magna Carta speaks of rights church against king or established church Not like Pakistan Islamic republic

6 Or Indonesia one god six official recognised religions Australian story S116 almost afterthought - assumption that we would be a godly commonwealth but we needed way to get agreement that it wouldn t be Anglican established. Catholics presbyterians and Methodist s comforted by s116cant establish religion or have tests for office. But doidnt adopt the broad US liberty protections 1. S116 - only Cth, narrow interpretation, historically - to stop established church. No law ever overturned. So no, the constitution does not have it covered 2. Exemptions to state and commonwealth anti-discrimination laws - general law saying you shall not discriminate against people on basis of gender or disability or protected attribute (growing) - looks like a concession to bigotry But mostly it has been held together by a cultural compact A live and let live attitude We haven t had lawyers involved in schools There are signs that those easy days of live and let live are going With a cultural shift to liberal equality With state government driving this Matter of justice and equality The revolution is interested in you Marriage is not the end What are we to do Pray not panic Argue for pluralism and diversity - not victim hood of Christians Hope not fear Love for enemies not hate Pray especially for lgbt - inside church, in schools, in charities - plausibility problem Mediate deeper on scripture - what will you teach How do you equip people to see Christ as lord Speak truth Pray for rulers Think about thenplatofrms for ministry Think like a missionary

7 Be concerned for rights of others Speed and scale Invest - risk analysis then multiply by 6 Connect with us Politically 3 levels 1. Pray 2. Connect and advocate 3. Get involved - join party, stand for office, Unfortunately we are still waiting for their response. In fact next week will be the anniversary of the panel being formed. The failure to release it is a problem and the public debate is much much poorer for it The delays saw Fairfax leak the recommendations in the lead up to the Wentworth by-election Secret plan for laws to reject gay students. This was of course, wilfully misleading. The leaked recommendations were far blander than that. There was no secret plan. The churches and schools were asking for nothing of the kind. They has never expelled gay students or sacked gay teachers. The Greens brought a bill to Senate to remove exemptions relating to discrimination in employment of staff. Senator Hinch sought standing overs suspended to allow a bill to defund any schools that discriminated. That motion was lost With the possible jewel of Wentworth to be won all the parties seemed to be very slow to speak of concerns for religious freedom and The difference between the two positions comes to a different understanding of what religious freedom is - is it narrow freedom of worship? Is it broader ability to hold live out faith And what is it we want as a society as we think about how to live On this frame the thing that really counts is your right to individual sexual equality If that comnfl

8 To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world. Karl Barth The law on marriage but many people s beliefs on marriage had not changed What should the law do? Would it enforce compliance of this new view or allow diversity of beliefs Whether you see no threats to freedom or grave threats to freedom also colours whether you see the existing legal protection as lacking or sufficient.