The Religious Divide !

Pity the New South Wales politicians who are trying to put together  legislation that will be acceptable in ending religious conflict.  At the heart of the matter is the notion of " religious freedom ", which means very different things to different  people.

The one thing that seems to be universally accepted is that no person should face discrimination in the workplace or in sport simply because of the religious beliefs they hold.  In a very broad brush approach, that would make it unlawful to discriminate against an employee for their religious activity, providing they did not  " actively criticise " their employer or cause " direct and material " financial detriment to their employer.

That comes into immediate conflict with what many people term the " right of free speech ". What happens when someone with celebrity status because of the sport they play actively condemns the lifestyle of team mates or opposing teams because the beliefs they hold do not accord with the beliefs of his or her religion  ?

We have the real life situation of a prominent rugby league player who openly seeks media attention with the claim that other players leading a " gay " lifestyle will spend eternity in Hell because that lifestyle conflicts with his religious beliefs.  As a result he has been suspended from play because of the damage caused to his sport.  That gay lifestyle is legal in Australia.

This " religious freedom " concept also extends to activities such as religious schools.  Do they have the right to discriminate by choosing pupils only from their religious base and employ teachers who hold those same religious beliefs  ?  Such religious schools charge fees, but often that fee is heavily subsidized by the church.

No religion enjoys preference in Australia and citizens are free to follow the religion of their choice. It is a fact of life that a growing percentage of the population now refutes claims that they belong to any nominated form of religion.  The " gay marriage " referendum clearly indicated the schism that now divides the position of most churches with the broad masses of people.

Religion is supposed to be the private choice of individual people and most religions claim the right to preach and extend the numbers of their flock, but in many forms that preaching is offensive to others. What the politicians are seeking to do is  create a set of rules that will limit that offence within reasonable boundaries.

That seems to be an impossible task unless that right of free speech is curtailed and that would involve media restrictions imposing limits on news reporting.   Perhaps imposing a limit on what can be reported  in the media would be the only option available to politicians.  Without the media trumpet, such stories quickly fade and die.

It has long been a tenet of polite conversation that the subjects to be avoided are politics and religion. Legislating that into law may be the only way this problem is solved !