I believe there is freedom of religion in Australia. There are a broad range of religious beliefs in Australia and the Government is committed to maintaining the Australian traditions of tolerance and respect.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other system of beliefs are free and the followers can practice their religions.
Still some religious people think that there is not freedom of religion in Australia. Why?

Hi Angela..hows things ? Hope ur well.

"Freedom of Religion" is a very broad statement, which can have many meanings.

"Communist Chinese" religious freedom means..

a) As long as the body is registered.
b) As long as the State controls, or.. that State sympathetic leaders control the body.
c) As long as the body says nothing which the government might view as 'distasteful'.

Islamic Religious Freedom.

MALAYSIA: Non Muslims are free to practice their faith EXCEPT when it comes to sharing that faith with Muslims. This is illegal.
Freedom to choose a religion is available to all except Muslims, who cannot choose a non Islamic faith.
MAURITANIA: For leaving Islam, death penalty.

DRAFT AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: contained elements which were remeniscent of the 'Charter of Omar' back in the early days of Islamic expansion. They include 'freedom' to 'practice' non muslim faiths (except idol worship I think) EXCEPT that
a) Cannot seek to convert Muslims
b) Cannot build new churches, only may repair existing ones, and cannot extend existing buildings. (= Cultural Religious genocide over time)

SAUDI ARABIA.. Freedom to be Muslim, no Christian Churches..not a single one.

AUSTRALIA.

Victoria: People are free to practice and propogate their faith.
The greatest danger for religious freedom in Victoria (and Australia) comes from 2 sources.

1/ Jewish Lobby + Muslim Lobby and the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
2/ Homosexual lobby.

In both cases, I predict there will be increasing pressure to 'forbid' Christians from using passages such as
Galatians 1:6-9 which condemns those who pollute the true Gospel.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GAL%201

and..

Romans 1:18-27 (which targets homosexual behavior and condemns it.)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=47;

The context of all those passages is crucial.
-Any condemnation of false teaching is related to Church, not to State. There is no justification for witch hunts or lynching atheists.

-Condemnation of specific behavior is 'eternity' related. No pohysical ill treatment in this life is advocated against homosexuals, but the State can legislate against such behavior democratically.

Angela, Boazy demonstrates the problem quite successfully. People who don't choose a deity based faith system (angostics/athiests/?) have their freedoms imposed upon by extremeists.

On faith group holds a disproportionate level of power in this country (disproportionate compared to the numbers in the general population who actually take that faith seriously). Perhaps a result of their unhealthy interest in imposing their faith on others and the issues that leave so many feeling a need to tell others how to live.

Freedom of religion is one of those odd things where the arguments for limits on it seem to be contradictory. I'd happily impose on Boazy my beliefe that Boazy should not have the right to impose the consequences of his beliefs on others. When he see's his freedom of religion as a right to deny others the opportunity to live in happy relationships because he and his god don't like then I think a line has been crossed. His freedom to believe should not outweigh the rights of others to manage their own lives and have the same legal protections that others have in our society.

We could also consider the access that pushers of Boazy's beliefs are given to our school system. From media reports I've seen Queensland has specifically refused agnostics similar access to conduct RE sessions in the state school system.

R0bert

Under any reasoable definition Australia has freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, as Boazy so often demonstrates, what we don't have is freedom *from* religion.

Hi BOAZ, Robert and CJ Morgan

I am very curious and interested to know about these Muslims who are waiting for permission from Prime Minister to teach Quran. I think they have some reasons regarding anti terrorism law which may not allow Muslims to recite or type Quran for others (as they say) because the anti terrorism law prohibits any comment that incites or instruct terrorism even "indirectly". But still I am not as goog as you guys to understand these things :)
Can someone explain to me why these Australian Muslims are waiting for permission of John Howard to start teaching the Quran?

http://www.sheikhharon.com/articles.html

Angela84, I did not read the whole thing but the page you refered to looked political rather than an honest concern. Our laws do prevent hate based teaching (sort of) but plenty of muslims don't see their faith that way and manage to teach their faith without fear of prosecution.

There may be grey areas in the law, we have those in most parts of the law. I'm not sure how you ever totally remove them, if everything is nailed down tightly then the schemers avoid the prohibited words or phrases and promote the same message in other words and phrases. If the law uses "reasonable person" type phrasing then it depends on what you consider reasonable.

Freedom of religion should be limited so that religious are free to practice their faiths in regard to their own lives but not allowed to practice them in a way that imposes the consequences of their faith on others.

R0bert