The issue is of utmost importance, but there is a problem:
To secure religious freedom, one must first be able to identify correctly which acts are religious.

Religion is not determined by organised churches nor by books like the Bible, but by God - and God may call on different people at different times to perform different actions in His service, even in ways that our human minds cannot comprehend.

Only a prophet can tell whether a particular action of a particular person at a particular time was ordained by God, that too, only when God reveals His purpose to him/her.

Since no prophets are presently employed in the public service, nor are there real prospects in our age for any prophet to be available and willing to work for government, we should safely assume that government and legislators have no idea about religion, except possibly about their own personal religion.

Therefore, the only way to safeguard religious freedom, is to avoid taking away freedoms altogether, assuming for the benefit of the doubt, every action to be religious. The less government intervenes in our lives, the less likely they would be to obstruct religion and [attempt to] disturb God's work.

One could ask, "but what about the evil, should we allow their freedom too?". Well, if indeed God calls you to fight evil then you will know it without a shadow of doubt and humbly follow His instructions regardless of whatever I say - otherwise, God can take care of the evil Himself and does a better job of it than any human can imagine!

"It's not alarmist to believe that we could lose meaningful religious freedom here in Australia, and much of the West, within the next 5 – 10 years. "

Well that's a lie, you better go pray.
Alarmist: someone who exaggerates a danger and so causes needless worry or panic.

Are you telling me you think the government is going to do a bible burning and bulldoze all the churches, mosques and synagogues?
- Can't see it happening, sorry -

Even if they did, you'd still be able to read your religious text at home (if you had another copy), and your still free to pray and have a relationship with your God.

What religious freedoms are you talking about losing exactly?
- The ones where you feel you're free to criticise others based ON YOUR OWN religious beliefs?

The right to say 'God hates Fags'
The right to say 'Infidels must die'
The right to separate 'Jews from Goyim'?

Religious freedom means you're free from being persecuted because of your religious beliefs;
- It doesn't mean your religion or the beliefs associated with it are free from criticism.

"Losing our religious freedom would impact some of the most vulnerable communities, namely refugees arriving in the West to escape oppression."

Refugees arriving in the West to escape oppression aren't communities.
- They're not even Australians, and certainly NOT OUR MOST VULNERABLE -
They're just refugees, and if they don't like how we do things they can always choose to go elsewhere.

"And so, if we're in a position to advocate for religious freedom – for the sake of our Muslim, Siek, Hindu neighbour as much as for our Christian neighbour – then shouldn't we take that opportunity while we still can?"

You have the freedom to advocate a completely religious world if you choose
- Just as I also have the freedom to advocate a world free completely from religion.

Hopefully the only "freedom" you will loose is the right to discriminate against a whole group of people who don't swallow your clap trap about some invisible guy in the sky.

Dear Critic,

Just hypothetically, suppose God had nothing better to do than to ordain certain people to say 'God hates Fags' or 'Infidels must die' (not only that, but explicitly to do this out in public, rather than in the privacy of their own bathroom) or to separate themselves for no good reason from certain others:

Would you really want to make these so-ordained people stand between a rock and a hard place? Obviously they must and will in such case obey God rather than the laws of a man-made state!

And suppose otherwise, that these idiotic behaviours are not from God, then this is not at all a matter of religion, never been and so religious freedom is not impacted!

«Religious freedom means you're free from being persecuted because of your religious beliefs;»

This is just a tiny and least worrying aspect of religious freedom.
Much more crucial is the denial of one's ability to carry out certain ordained physical acts of worship, yet the most serious and horrific of all is the forcing of religious people to perform actions that are proscribed by their religion. This must never be allowed to happen.

---

Dear Aries,

Are you seriously suggesting that there are people (over the of 5) who believe that there's an invisible guy in the sky?

You need to go back to square one, my friend, and study what religion is really about.

.

Dear Akos,

.

Australia is a modern democracy that respects the UN’s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights’ articles 18 and 19 :

[Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.]

[Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.]
.

In practise, in terms of freedom of expression, the scales are largely weighted in favour of religion in every country in the Western world, without exception. Editors are extremely prudent when it comes to publishing books, articles poems, or other media, including artistic, historical, or scholarly works, that are critical of religion.

The fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for his “Satanic Verses” in 1989 has not been forgotten. The book sparked violence around the world and was banned in several countries. Those associated with the publication and translation were attacked and Rushdie's personal freedom was severely limited. He was forced to live in hiding for 13 years under police protection.

Religious intolerance is in everybody’s mind. It is a powerful dissuader for editors who dare not take the risk of publishing material that is critical of religion – no matter what the denomination – including Christianity.

I am pleased to see, Akos, that you have no problem publishing your article on your own blog and here on OLO. You are in excellent company. There are nearly 1,000 articles on religion here on OLO.

I haven’t had the courage to sift through them all to see if there are any that are critical of religion. There might be a few, but I haven’t found any yet.

There are even a few articles by Graham Young, the OLO editor himself – all emphatically pro-religion (Christianity).

Not many freethinkers.

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

When asked of their religious affiliation in the 2016 census, 29.6% of Australians (or 6,933,708 people) selected "no religion."

This is more than seven percent higher (and 2,240,546 more people), than in the 2011 census. Additionally in 2016, another 0.5% instead opted to specify their form of irreligion, writing it in under "other," hence resulting in 30.1% of Australians (or just over 7,040,700 people) selecting "no religion." A further 9.6% either did not state a religion, or gave a response that was unclear, meaning that 39.7% of Australians did not expressly state a religious affiliation in the 2016 census. (Wikipedia)

So roughly 60% of Australians adhere to religion and 40% don't.

In terms of freedom of expression, that indicates that religious people are getting more than their fair share from the democratic system.

Pluralism and tolerance are fostered by the application of the principles of state neutrality/impartiality and respect. However, the principle of fostering pluralism and tolerance is also viewed as a goal in its own right because it is a means of preserving democracy. It requires religious adherents to accept ‘a fairly high degree of challenge’ to their belief systems in the pursuit of this goal.

Believers must ‘accept the legitimacy of there being a divergence of views on matters of fundamental significance to them within the broader society of which they form a part’, and the same principle applies to non-believers who are faced with the manifestation of forms of religion or belief which they might find unwelcome or unpalatable.

In such situations, the role of the state is ‘not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but through its actions seek to ensure toleration’.

Non-believers are still getting the short end of the stick for the moment, Akos.

.