According to yesterday’s Age, the Victorian government is facing a new “political headache”, in the shape of a review of the state’s Equal Opportunity Act. The review is said to have “sparked widespread alarm among religious Victorians”, threatening “their religious freedom to discriminate within churches, schools and church-run welfare services.”
This raises a perennial issue: when should religions be exempt from laws that the rest of us have to obey? Three years ago Pru Goward, now a New South Wales MP but then outgoing federal s-x discrimination commissioner, controversially argued that churches should no longer be allowed to discriminate against women. The debate ranges over such cases as homophobic faith-based schools in the UK and ceremonial use of peyote in the US.
In relation to religion, the law tries to balance two desirable goals: that religions should not receive any special privileges (at the expense either of other religions or of the non-religious), and that people should be free to practise whatever religion they choose. Section 116 of the Constitution expresses both ideas: “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion … or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”.
The problem is that the two goals are not always compatible. A law that bans s-x discrimination, or drug use, or for that matter human sacrifice, will restrict religious freedom. But if joining a church allows you to disobey a law that everyone else has to abide by, that surely amounts to a special privilege for religion. That’s the objection to the churches’ position on the Equal Opportunity Act.
The logical course would be to start by asking whether society has a compelling interest in restricting a particular instance of religious freedom. If not, then the exemption should be widely drawn. An unreasonable restriction on freedom is just that — unreasonable; its reasonableness shouldn’t depend on whether the motive for exercising the freedom is religious or secular.
The question is whether something like s-x discrimination is a sufficiently vital matter that we are justified in overriding people’s deeply held personal beliefs. If we are, the churches should have to obey like everyone else. But if not, then exemption shouldn’t be confined to religious organisations or religious belief.
If there is no compelling interest to stop churches discriminating against women, or gays, or Muslims, there is no compelling interest in stopping anyone else either.
The debate involves two competing freedoms: freedom from discrimination against freedom of choice. Religious freedom is just one aspect of the latter. Its importance should lead us to recognise the importance of personal freedom in general, before deciding how far we are prepared to go in overriding it.
Good article. Thanks.
The issue is complex. I have heard both sides and both sides have some good things to say, and some shallow things to add to the mix.
Those who say Church schools (and Jewish schools and Muslim schools etc ) must be made to employ gay teachers, for example, see the exemption to the discrimination law as appauling. It is a fundamental act of discrimination that should be eliminated.
Those who want to maintain the exemption say “why would a gay teacher want to work in that place for anyway? Just to drive home a point? What is their agenda? To undermine the ideals and practices of the very place they are seeking employment in?” (The other side might say: not to undermine, but to enlighten. Not to be negative, but a positive force for change).
Those who oppose expanding the laws to cover the religious do have an interesting analogy: I heard someone recently say: “It would be like saying: if you can be a signed up member of the Liberal party, then you should be allowed to be a signed up member of the Labor Party at the same time. That way, they can influence the Labor Party to be more like the Liberal Party.”
Of course, the parties don’t allow that: they discriminate against members of other parties by excluding them from active participation in their own party. Why? Because they are suspicious about their motives and think they might undermine their core values. And that is probably true. (Though the other side might say: no we are seeking not to undermine but to enlighten, not to be negative but to be a positive force for change…..)
So … is it true for the religious schools too? Is their exemption legitimate?
Where that analogy might break down is that we are not necessarily talking about core human values like equality. … or are we? Do different political parties exclude other members of other parties from their fold, because of the fear of it undermining their core values? Would a militarist consumerist who happily destroys the environment for self gain, be allowed to join the Greens? I hope not!
A very interesting debate.
It’s simple – NO benefits or special exemptions for ANY religion.
While I sympathise with that position BK, what about political parties? And their rules that discriminate? Or other organisations that have rules that keep women out or men out (fitness clubs, sporting groups, etc?)
It is complicated…. and bloody hard to be consistent…. Or do you just want to make religious groups comply? (if so… why them?)
I guess we can say: lets try to fix up the problems one step at a time.
And that way we can target groups that discriminate even if we don’t get all of them straight away. Of course it opens up another hard question: who will decide the order of the list?
When I started any job, I wasn’t asked what my sexuality or sexual preference was. I’m hetrosexual, but it’s nobody else’s business, or is it?Why should gays or lesbian’s sexuality be of interest. If I commit a crime of theft for example, my sexuality isn’t read out in court. IF a gay or lesbian wants to admit to their sexual preference, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t influence their right to a job, unless they committed a crime, or encouraged students to engage in sexual relationships, but hetrosexuals are treated in the same manner. I can’t see what other reason churches would have apart from bigotry and homophobia?
The same applies to discrimination on the basis of gender? Churches aren’t exempt from the law in relation to stealing etc(although their members got away with sexual abuse which still enrages me) so why should they be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination? As a woman I object to many churche’s attitude to women for example- their misogynist at best and criminal at worst.
There is an area where positive discrimination is essential. For example, a refuge for battered women and kids. Obviously, they don’t want these premises accessed by men in order to protect those seeking refuge. I was appalled to read recently for example, where a judge in the Family Court threatened to release the address of a woman where she and her children had sought refuge – this would’ve not only put her life at risk, but other women and kids too! But apart from these common sense and essential rules, I can’t think of another example. Men’s clubs etc?No!
How is this still seriously a matter for debate in a civilised secular society?
You can feel free to believe whatever you like, and express those views freely, but that freedom stops when you break the law.
Religion or “belief” alone is not a good ground to discriminate against a person. If I “believe” that black people are inferior, why should I be free to refuse to hire a qualified person merely because she is black? Similarly, if my “belief” dictates that homosexuality is evil, that does not make it reasonable for me to refuse services to gay people. Some people “believe” in human sacrifice, but we have laws against that kind of thing, for good reason.
Why should “faith groups” be given special protection not afforded to other groups? One might equally ask why trainspotters, knitting enthusiasts, weekend soccer players, bird fanciers and members of amateur musical societies should not be equally entitled to consider themselves above laws which the rest of us must adhere to.
The sole purpose of religion is to entrench social exclusion. Every religion teaches that it alone holds the truth, and most teach that those who adhere to another, or no, religious faith are evil and/or condemned to eternal torment. Allowing discrimination simply endorses that aim.
The presence or absence of a belief in the supernatural should be entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular action should be permitted.