“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth” (The Australian Constitution, Chapter 5, Section 116).
Freedom of religion is a concept prevalent in most countries around the world. Australia, as a multicultural and diverse country, consists of many citizens who practice the world’s dominant religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. The growth of religious diversity has always been evident in Australia; steadily changing with the increase of immigration, media exposure, and many more circumstances that have led to a more religion-accepting society. Religious freedom is a policy that exists to enable those who practice their religion to practice freely without fear of persecution, discrimination, or prohibition. However, freedom of religion does not exist as an excuse to enable said persecution or discrimination toward others. It does not exist for people of faith to proliferate prejudicial views and use their religion as an excuse to assert said views.
It is imperative that we, as a society, need to realize that Australia’s current policy enabling freedom of religion and faith must not be used as a scapegoat for bigotry, discrimination, and abuse. Firstly, exploiting the current policy can lead to severe consequences for the perpetrator when they have been found to use their religion to victimize themselves and escape retribution. An example of a backfired misuse of religious freedom can be displayed by Israel Folau, an Australian rugby player, who was sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments made on social media. As said by MP Barnaby Joyce, “People were a little bit shocked that someone could lose their job because of what they believe. It made everyone feel a bit awkward and uneasy”. He references one’s beliefs as a reason why one might ‘lose their job’; was he referring to the beliefs that fall under Folau’s Christian faith? Or was he actually referring to the misinterpreted ideas of an archaic religion that was used to seemingly justify Folau’s appallingly homophobic comments? So, can your faith really be used to justify your discriminatory views when you’re not even preaching correctly? And should those views even be generalized with your religion if they’ve been developed from your ignorance and misinterpretation, rather than the explicit, core teachings? Amid the controversy, Folau has hit back at Rugby Australia, claiming that he was sacked because of his religion and therefore experienced an ‘unlawful termination’ as protected under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act is used to protect those who are at risk of ‘unlawful termination’ because of their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or religion. However, there is a difference between firing someone for the sole reason that they’re Christian and firing someone because they express extremist ideologies that they have misinterpreted from Christianity. Folau’s situation falls under the latter. It is absurd for Folau to claim that he was punished for expressing his faith; he was punished for expressing bigoted and malicious views, and wrongfully used his faith as a way to evade ramifications and turn the situation around to villainize those who oppose him.
My second point is that the misemployment of religious freedom harms the many minority groups apparent in Australia. Politicians use their religion to employ damaging policies for the LGBT community, Catholic priests use their status within their religion to escape persecution for abhorrent crimes toward children, and pro-life campaigners use their religion to terrorize vulnerable women outside of abortion clinics. As referred to in my first point, by discriminating against innocent people in the name of ‘religious beliefs’, the policy for freedom of religion then becomes a policy for freedom of prejudice. Contrarily, those who practice Islam are constantly negatively represented in the media, meaning that it’s difficult for them to experience this religious freedom because of the fear of persecution. We have witnessed so many radicalized people of faith, but we know that ISIS isn’t representative of all Muslims and Folau isn’t representative of all Christians. The small group of religious people who do excuse their destructive beliefs with their faith, paint the rest of their religion with the same harmful stereotype. The enforcement of religious freedom in a wrongful way not only harms the groups being discriminated against, but it also harms the very people in the religion.
Many argue that Folau and others shouldn’t be punished for the expression of their religious beliefs, but this argument falls flat when the Bible doesn’t even teach its followers to believe that “homosexuals are going straight to Hell” – as said by Folau himself. According to Rugby Australia, Folau wasn’t fired because of his religion, his comments had infringed the Player Code of Conduct. The code states that “players must treat everyone equally, regardless of their sexual orientation”. Folau’s case is one that comes under freedom of speech, not freedom of religion, so again it’s truly inane that Folau has tried to victimize himself after abusing the policy that was made to protect Australian people of faith who practice peacefully.
There are also arguments that if groups like the LGBT community can express their beliefs, people of faith can too; however, this argument is completely invalid. There are very few cases where LGBT people express hateful views toward others, most of these are cases of Internet trolling. Everyone in Australia has always had the right to hold their personal beliefs and morals, but there is a line between personal speech and then hate speech. It is fallacious to compare the belief that gay people should have the right to marry to the belief that all gays are going to Hell and should not be accepted by society, one doesn’t negatively affect anyone, but the other one does. You can interpret which one.
Religious freedom is important, it allows people of faith all over Australia to express themselves and their religion safely and without fear. But freedom of religion shouldn’t enable discriminatory views or offer resistance to punishment for the expression of said prejudice. Here’s a question for those who want to use their religion as a scapegoat for being a hateful bigot: do you really love thy neighbor?
Did you like this example?
Yes
No
Cite this paper
Do You Really Love Thy Neighbour on Freedom of Religion.
(2023, October 11). Edubirdie. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://edubirdie.com/examples/do-you-really-love-thy-neighbour-critical-essay-on-freedom-of-religion/
“Do You Really Love Thy Neighbour on Freedom of Religion.” Edubirdie, 11 Oct. 2023, edubirdie.com/examples/do-you-really-love-thy-neighbour-critical-essay-on-freedom-of-religion/
Do You Really Love Thy Neighbour on Freedom of Religion. [online].
Available at: <https://edubirdie.com/examples/do-you-really-love-thy-neighbour-critical-essay-on-freedom-of-religion/> [Accessed 21 Nov. 2024].
Do You Really Love Thy Neighbour on Freedom of Religion [Internet]. Edubirdie.
2023 Oct 11 [cited 2024 Nov 21].
Available from: https://edubirdie.com/examples/do-you-really-love-thy-neighbour-critical-essay-on-freedom-of-religion/
copy
Stuck on your essay?
