Does religion justify discrimination?
|
According to yesterday’s Age, the Victorian government is facing a new “political headache”, in the shape of a review of the state’s Equal Opportunity Act. The review is said to have “sparked widespread alarm among religious Victorians”, threatening “their religious freedom to discriminate within churches, schools and church-run welfare services.” This raises a perennial issue: when should religions be exempt from laws that the rest of us have to obey? Three years ago Pru Goward, now a New South Wales MP but then outgoing federal s-x discrimination commissioner, controversially argued that churches should no longer be allowed to discriminate against women. The debate ranges over such cases as homophobic faith-based schools in the UK and ceremonial use of peyote in the US. In relation to religion, the law tries to balance two desirable goals: that religions should not receive any special privileges (at the expense either of other religions or of the non-religious), and that people should be free to practise whatever religion they choose. Section 116 of the Constitution expresses both ideas: “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion … or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”. The problem is that the two goals are not always compatible. A law that bans s-x discrimination, or drug use, or for that matter human sacrifice, will restrict religious freedom. But if joining a church allows you to disobey a law that everyone else has to abide by, that surely amounts to a special privilege for religion. That’s the objection to the churches’ position on the Equal Opportunity Act. The logical course would be to start by asking whether society has a compelling interest in restricting a particular instance of religious freedom. If not, then the exemption should be widely drawn. An unreasonable restriction on freedom is just that — unreasonable; its reasonableness shouldn’t depend on whether the motive for exercising the freedom is religious or secular. The question is whether something like s-x discrimination is a sufficiently vital matter that we are justified in overriding people’s deeply held personal beliefs. If we are, the churches should have to obey like everyone else. But if not, then exemption shouldn’t be confined to religious organisations or religious belief. If there is no compelling interest to stop churches discriminating against women, or gays, or Muslims, there is no compelling interest in stopping anyone else either. The debate involves two competing freedoms: freedom from discrimination against freedom of choice. Religious freedom is just one aspect of the latter. Its importance should lead us to recognise the importance of personal freedom in general, before deciding how far we are prepared to go in overriding it. |
|
|
|
13 Comments
Good article. Thanks.
The issue is complex. I have heard both sides and both sides have some good things to say, and some shallow things to add to the mix.
Those who say Church schools (and Jewish schools and Muslim schools etc ) must be made to employ gay teachers, for example, see the exemption to the discrimination law as appauling. It is a fundamental act of discrimination that should be eliminated.
Those who want to maintain the exemption say “why would a gay teacher want to work in that place for anyway? Just to drive home a point? What is their agenda? To undermine the ideals and practices of the very place they are seeking employment in?” (The other side might say: not to undermine, but to enlighten. Not to be negative, but a positive force for change).
Those who oppose expanding the laws to cover the religious do have an interesting analogy: I heard someone recently say: “It would be like saying: if you can be a signed up member of the Liberal party, then you should be allowed to be a signed up member of the Labor Party at the same time. That way, they can influence the Labor Party to be more like the Liberal Party.”
Of course, the parties don’t allow that: they discriminate against members of other parties by excluding them from active participation in their own party. Why? Because they are suspicious about their motives and think they might undermine their core values. And that is probably true. (Though the other side might say: no we are seeking not to undermine but to enlighten, not to be negative but to be a positive force for change…..)
So … is it true for the religious schools too? Is their exemption legitimate?
Where that analogy might break down is that we are not necessarily talking about core human values like equality. … or are we? Do different political parties exclude other members of other parties from their fold, because of the fear of it undermining their core values? Would a militarist consumerist who happily destroys the environment for self gain, be allowed to join the Greens? I hope not!
A very interesting debate.
It’s simple - NO benefits or special exemptions for ANY religion.
While I sympathise with that position BK, what about political parties? And their rules that discriminate? Or other organisations that have rules that keep women out or men out (fitness clubs, sporting groups, etc?)
It is complicated…. and bloody hard to be consistent…. Or do you just want to make religious groups comply? (if so… why them?)
I guess we can say: lets try to fix up the problems one step at a time.
And that way we can target groups that discriminate even if we don’t get all of them straight away. Of course it opens up another hard question: who will decide the order of the list?
When I started any job, I wasn’t asked what my sexuality or sexual preference was. I’m hetrosexual, but it’s nobody else’s business, or is it?Why should gays or lesbian’s sexuality be of interest. If I commit a crime of theft for example, my sexuality isn’t read out in court. IF a gay or lesbian wants to admit to their sexual preference, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t influence their right to a job, unless they committed a crime, or encouraged students to engage in sexual relationships, but hetrosexuals are treated in the same manner. I can’t see what other reason churches would have apart from bigotry and homophobia?
The same applies to discrimination on the basis of gender? Churches aren’t exempt from the law in relation to stealing etc(although their members got away with sexual abuse which still enrages me) so why should they be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination? As a woman I object to many churche’s attitude to women for example- their misogynist at best and criminal at worst.
There is an area where positive discrimination is essential. For example, a refuge for battered women and kids. Obviously, they don’t want these premises accessed by men in order to protect those seeking refuge. I was appalled to read recently for example, where a judge in the Family Court threatened to release the address of a woman where she and her children had sought refuge - this would’ve not only put her life at risk, but other women and kids too! But apart from these common sense and essential rules, I can’t think of another example. Men’s clubs etc?No!
How is this still seriously a matter for debate in a civilised secular society?
You can feel free to believe whatever you like, and express those views freely, but that freedom stops when you break the law.
Religion or “belief” alone is not a good ground to discriminate against a person. If I “believe” that black people are inferior, why should I be free to refuse to hire a qualified person merely because she is black? Similarly, if my “belief” dictates that homosexuality is evil, that does not make it reasonable for me to refuse services to gay people. Some people “believe” in human sacrifice, but we have laws against that kind of thing, for good reason.
Why should “faith groups” be given special protection not afforded to other groups? One might equally ask why trainspotters, knitting enthusiasts, weekend soccer players, bird fanciers and members of amateur musical societies should not be equally entitled to consider themselves above laws which the rest of us must adhere to.
The sole purpose of religion is to entrench social exclusion. Every religion teaches that it alone holds the truth, and most teach that those who adhere to another, or no, religious faith are evil and/or condemned to eternal torment. Allowing discrimination simply endorses that aim.
The presence or absence of a belief in the supernatural should be entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a particular action should be permitted.
Jim, the reason a “why a gay teacher would want to work in that place anyway” might be that he/she needs a job! Why should there be fewer jobs available to those who in some way fall foul of the invented rules of an invented god?
I’m almost willing to admit that there may be room to move in relation to a narrowly defined class of office holders (priests etc) of religious organisations. (Almost)
But any other post (and particularly one I, as a taxpayer, contribute to paying for) including teacher in a religous school, nurse in a religious hospital, foster carer for a religious foster organisation, case worker for a religous job placement agency, social worker in a religious youth refuge, cashier in a religious shop - the list goes on - absolutely not!
If there are good reasons for discrimination in a particular case or category, let them be argued. But until there is any evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god (much less for a god who has any interest in the gender or sexuality of a prospective employee), then those good reasons cannot logically include “because [insert name of god here] says”, regardless of how sincerely that belief is held.
I certainly sympathise with Kate and Liz. (Though I would have to qualify the comment that the “sole purpose” of religion is to entrench social exclusion. Surely it has other purposes. And for some religious, social exclusion would not be a purpose at all).
Nevertheless, discrimination is to be abhored.
I still suggest that to be consistent on this is extremely difficult. Do we close down men-only clubs? Women only gyms? The AFL unless they allow women to be football players too? Muslim schools that wont employ fundamentalist Christians? Christian schools that wont employ atheists? Jewish schools that don’t employ someone with slightly neo-Nazi ideas? (A history teacher who denies the holocaust?)
How do we accommodate diverse groups in a multicultural community? How do we ask them (make them) stop believing and teaching their traditional beliefs? Indeed, what we are saying is that we want to force them to embrace my view of homosexuality, gender equality, etc?
If I insist they be just like me on this, (and I have really good reasons for my more liberated position which I love to argue at other times) but if I insist they get enlightened - then am I not falling into the problem of imposing my views on others? And using the law to enforce that?
Doesn’t “tolerating all people”, mean tolerating those who are less tolerant than me? If I show intolerance to the intolerant, (and use the law to make them change) then how different am I from the people I abhor? Shouldn’t we change intolerant people by example and argument? If we resort to “it’s quicker to use the law and make them”, then how enlightened are we - really?
I hesitate in teasing this out only because I do believe in fighting discrimination and I do believe in treating all people equally with dignity and respect. But try to live that out in a multicultural community and it is like walking through a minefield.
“The logical course would be to start by asking whether society has a compelling interest in restricting a particular instance of religious freedom. If not, then the exemption should be widely drawn.”
Excellent point. Unfortunately logic seems to be fairly lacking when it comes to lawmaking, often giving way to political pressure.
Jim, the problem with your analysis is that as a society we already “impose our views on others” and “use the law to enforce that”. That’s what laws do. The alternative is called anarchy.
As a society, we have a collective view that discrimination on grounds of gender/race/sexuality is generally wrong and ought not to be permitted. Clearly, there are cases where this general rule doesn’t apply, and the key is working out what the exceptions should be.
My point is simply that using religion as a basis to decide what is reasonable and what isn’t is untenable. “Because my invisible friend says so” is not an adult reason for anything, much less a good reason on which laws should be based.
Maybe you see that as intolerant. Fine. Modern civilised societies simply do not tolerate some things. “I should be allowed to sacrifice babies at the full moon because of my religion” is clearly one of those things. “I should be allowed to discriminate against women & gays because of my religion” is, in my opinion, another.
Thanks for your thoughts Kate. I really do sympathise with your position. I just don’t have a rationale that helps me justify why I can make others accept my values, and others cant make me accept theirs. Majority rule I guess? you call it the “collective view”. But that changes with the decades. Not that long ago the “collective view” locked up gays and adulterers. Things change (thank goodness).
I still think that tolerance is the way to go, with education and example leading the way of change. But of course we must not tolerate things that actually harm others. Society usually does not accept that, even over time. But it has to be in clear and obvious ways (like your child sacrifice example!)
If I may digress for a moment: I would add that your dismissive and flippant attitude to religion does not help your argument. It actually undermines the strength of your good points. (It might build up walls of resentment that stop some people from listening to what you have to say.) I am a history lecturer and there have been terrible and wonderful religious people in all the major different religions over the centuries. I am studying the life of Francis of Assisi at the moment, for example. It is hard not to admire his radical rejection of materialism and his unconditional acceptance of the most marginalised people of his time, let alone his love for the environment. Very relevant to our modern world, I would suggest.
But to be so dismissive and indeed mocking of religion, is to ignore other people’s genuine experiences and beliefs. And even though I can not personally identify with those who claim to have “deep spiritual experiences”, I will not be so self-sure as to assume that my worldview and experiences (or lack of them) is the only reality there is.
Religious folk are not all bastards. (Just some of them!) And while some of us will not share those beliefs and values, we could equally be mocked and dismissed by others who differ to us. It does not make for a more peaceful world to join into that mass of negativity and cynicism. Abetter way is indeed tolerance, education, and example (you seem to call it anachy - I guess we have to disagree on that).
Thanks for the feedback, everyone - some good points & some really good discussion. My preference is always to err on the side of personal freedom, accept that some people will use it in ways we disapprove of, but only use the law against them when it’s necessary to prevent actual harm to others (e.g. the laws against human sacrifice). But the key point I wanted to bring out was that whether they’re acting for religious reasons shouldn’t make a difference either way.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Jim. I am aware that there may be more effective ways of changing hearts & minds, but this is how I am.
Unfortunately I find it to very hard hide my disdain for religion.
“God says women are inferior” is an affront to me as a woman and a civilised human being.
“God hates fags” is an affront to me as lesbian and a member of the human race.
“God says lesbians can’t be mothers” is an affront to me as a lesbian mother - and the urge to protect my child from these people is greater than any call for compromise.
“God says have more babies” is an affront to me as a woman, and as a concerned citizen of the worlk.
“God says your infant child is tainted by original sin” is an affront to me as a mother and as a logical thinking person.
“God made the world in 7 days, 6000 years ago” (particularly as taught to children) is an affront to me as a person who values truth, science and education.
“God says …. [insert any assertion at all]… ” is an affront to me as an educated adult, given that it is said without any evidence at all.
“Have faith … believe” is an affront to me in almost every capacity.
So, despite “other people’s genuine experiences and beliefs”, for me the evidence against religion is so overwhelming, and the evil done by religious ideas so great, that I simply cannot “make nice”, even though there might be some short-term gain.
Guess that’s why I’m not a politician.
Thanks Kate, sorry it has taken me so long to reply.
You are right in so far as some people have said exactly the things you give as examples of offensive beliefs (that have led to tragic behaviors as well).
But many religious (of different religions) don’t say those things, in fact the opposite.
“Fundamentalists” can quote their favorite half sentence here or there from their religious books, and ignore context and grammar and historical and cultural settings and all sorts of other things that compel other religious people to reject those very statements you cite.
But clearly you have felt the cruelty of the narrow-minded religious. And not the grace and love of the broader minder ones.
I don’t believe that religion causes all the woes of the world though. I believe humans do that. And some do it as religious people justifying their actions with their woeful rationales that use their religion to do it. Others do it well without religion.
Hitler was a bastard of the 1st degree and was not religious. So too Stalin (he actually rejected it as a young man). Pol Pot, Mao, … these guys made the crusading Popes look like amateurs.
But there have been the horrible religious too. So atheists can do great cruelty and so can religious. So there is something else happening. And it is in us humans I think.
We can do such good. And we can do such evil. And when someone says to you that “God hates fags” - shit I found that hard to even write - it breaks my heart. When another religious (whom you have not met) say: “we should all live in harmony and peace and love each other and treat each other with dignity and equality in all respects - even if we don’t share the same world view or the same lifestyle” - then I know something better is possible.
Some days I look at humanity and think we are a virus on the face of the earth. At other days I look at us and think we can save the world. I think that actually reflects me personally. I see the dark and the light within me and realize that we are all much the same. It is whether we decide to live in the dark or the light that makes us who we are. And it impacts those around us as well.
Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rave. But I have enjoyed our conversation Kate.