The religious assault on civil liberties is only just beginning.

See for example the attempt to re-introduce blasphemy laws under the guise of stopping the "defamation of religion."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html

Quote:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". …loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". …the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

"Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

The school chaplaincy program started by PM Howard placed chaplains in the schools. Most if not all are fundamentalist Christians connected with Scripture Union. The current PM has continued the program. Chaplains have stated that their purpose is to 'bring people to Christ.' Having such individuals in the schools lends them the authority of the state. It is outrageous if and when children were subjected to government supported missionising in schools of a Muslim country. It is equally outrageous for children to be subjected to government supported Christian missionising in Australian schools. http://www.thefourthr.info/index.html is a website which contends the chaplaincy program violates Queensland law. Are there efforts in other states to end this program?

If parents want religious indoctrination for their children that is their right, but it should not be the business of the public schools.

Children may need a person to come to with their problems in school. Such an individual should be provided by the school system. However, the individual should be a trained councillor who has no religious axe to grind.

My representative in Parliament, a Lib, supports the chaplaincy program. The Rudd government supports the program. I feel state supported missionising has no business in Australian schools.

Going on the lead sentence... I so totally agree.

The difference as I see it is how people behave.

No offense to religious people, but gods are just ideas, as opposed to physically reality of race. Comparatively speaking an idea can take as much hate as people feel the need to throw at it. A human being can't.

While I stand for peoples right to (even for religious reasons) not like a race or sexuality, just because it is a human right to have an opinion. One cannot accept active harm to anyone else for no real reason. Where as a belief/god cannot really be harmed and in the name of transparency must be kept open to being debated, hated, fought against, ridiculed... etc.

It's the responsibility of the people who shelter in the name of any belief or group to maintain it's reputation. I find any *group* abusing positive discrimination to enhance itself or protect it's own bigotry to be a shameful burden on society..

Mr Robinson, there are undoubtedly points to be made in favour of rescinding special tax exemptions for religious groups.

These laws are anachronistic in the extreme.

However, the rest of your arguments against special pleading for religions, sound awfully like... special pleading.

"Choice implies a range of options from which one option can be selected... So if we are to have freedom of religious belief, people must be presented with a range of religious choices,"

The logic leap between "choice implies a range of options" and "So, if we are to have freedom..." is a step too far.

Why should it follow, that because we have choices, "the gumment" should be responsible for presenting us with those choices?

This provides massive opportunity for abuse.

Who decides what that "range of options" should consist of? Kevin Rudd? Fred Nile? Danny Nalliah?

How do you deliver the stories consistently?

The proposed "solution" is not only superfluous, but unworkable.

Also, to unilaterally decide that schools funded by religious groups should not qualify as schools, in terms of government funding, is discriminatory in the extreme. Why should you restrict parental choice in this way?

Again, the argument is specious.

"...they would not be eligible for any public support or funding, on the grounds that they were not meeting their human rights obligations to promote freedom of choice in religion and belief."

Since when was it a "human rights obligation" to promote someone else's religion?

If I choose to send my children to a Catholic school, or an Anglican School, or a Muslim school, why should that "freedom" not be subject to government protection too? After all...

"This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief"

OK, so I've adopted one. Only now I'm prevented from sending my kids to a school that teaches my chosen belief system?

I don't think so.

It is a crying shame that the author cannot see the faultlines in his argument, given that he advertises himself as a rationalist.

Don't see a great deal of rational thinking here, I'm afraid.

<<Also, to unilaterally decide that schools funded by religious groups should not qualify as schools, in terms of government funding, is discriminatory in the extreme. Why should you restrict parental choice in this way?>>

huh? why SHOULD the government be supporting such divisive schools? yes, it's "discriminatory", exactly in the sense that discrimination is needed. what is needed is discrimination between indoctrination and education.

yes, that discrimination will always be clumsy and controversial. but to simply give up, throw your hands in the air and pronounce that any superstitious quackschool is entitled to government assistance is just ridiculous.

and, it is arguably unconstitutional, as is the case in america. one crappy high court decision can do a hell of a lot of damage.

Pericles,

I agree that the author's proposal is impractical, however,
you're equating freedom of religion with government support of "independent" schools, a secular state has no business promoting superstition by the use of taxpayers' funds. What do you mean by "governmemt protection"? If you want to send your children to a religious school you pay for their education( that's real freedom of religion) not the taxpayers, as long as these schools reach the required standards of education, I have no objection. Since when was it a human rights obligation to promote any religion? The raison d'etre of a liberal democratic state is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens, nothing more. I'd say the notion that the government should pander to its citizens' prejudices is a development of the ridiculous and pernicious notion of "multi culturalism".