The most revealing part of this post is that the author is identified at the end as an atheist, which is fine and her right to comment just as I as a Christian have that same right, but we all need to understand the implacable opposition of atheism to religion.

The point about Religious Freedom is that it was included in the first cluster of rights enshrined in British 1689 Bill of Rights, still part of the statute Book at least in Victoria. It came about in the first place because of the persecution of religious believers, mainly Presbyterians and other dissenters under the reign of the Stuarts.

There is very extensive international law in favour of freedom of conscience, thought and religion: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - read the preamble, Art 1 Art 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read Art 2 18 (esp), 20, 25 and 27. If you look at Art 18.3, the limitation to religious freedom clause it is very narrowly focused limitation, especially when read in the light of the 1984 Siracusa Declaration.

The fact is the AHRC was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of submissions from religious bodies and individual adherents of religions arguing for religious freedom and basically chose to back off on one very big bun fight.

Atheists just need to get over it. Religious people are not going to back down or back off trying to influence Government policy just in the same way we don't expect atheists to back off – we just expect that they should grow up!

In my view Bouma, Cahill, Dellal and Zwartz did a good job. BTW, for the record their report contains no recommendations.

This country needs "freedom FROM religion" incorporated into our Constitution, not just "freedom of religion"

It is not surprising that the motley collection of Human Rights puritans is down on religion in Australia, religions used to be the definers as to what consituted acceptable beahviour in any society, and every societies laws were very influenced by their particular religion.

So, it is natural that the HREOC advocates see religions as their competitors.

It is funny how today's human rights advocate has a very religious attitude to their own dogma, which claims that Human Rights as defined by the UN is the ultimate in moral virtue, clearly superior and taking precedence over any other belief system.

So, it is hardly surprising that Chrys Stevenson is an advocate for secularism as a way to ease her religious competitors out of their historically pre eminent positions, so that her own Human Rights religion can become the belief system which defines behaviour today.

As a retired academic, I was horrified to learn that two professors had lent their names to a document which severely misrepresents the results of the National Church Life Survey. I look forward to reading their explanation or, preferably, their apology.

David Palmer, 11:23:28am

Yes, religious persecution has been going on ever since religions were first devised, before 1689, including persecution of the non-religious. Special reference to Presbyterians is not necessary. Your holier-than-thou commentary towards others does you, or your advocacy for religion, no favours.

From the view point of the government, which is the publicity wing of real "economic" governance, it doesn't matter what belief system or morality we opt for, so long as it keeps things settled and the business of maintaining markets and making money is optimised. We are deluded if we think beliefs--religious, irreligious or secular--are of the least importance in the scheme of things. Beliefs are our private indulgences that we attempt to hold sacred amid the hurdy gurdy of the stock exchange.