Freedom of religion?

We are yet again embroiled in debates about freedom of religion. As so often has been the case, there is no serious attention being given by those making claims for protection of their freedoms to what they really mean, other than some implicit claim to have been threatened or in some way offended or oppressed by changes mooted or actually taking place in our society.

What freedoms are being threatened? We are allowed freedom of thought and belief, though perhaps it might be argued that the modern media do exercise some level of thought control through subtle if not subliminal influence. There is nothing in Australian law that limits what a person may believe.

What about freedom of speech? Here is one area of contention. Is it freedom of speech that is at stake when a person claims the right to issue offensive statements about another group of people who happen to be identified by their cultural and religious practices? We have coined the term ‘hate speech’ to refer to utterances in public which seek to express such offensive and hurtful characterisations and threats. 

The contentious element emerges when one person or group claims that some statements of this nature arise from their religious beliefs and convictions. They claim that in saying these things they are fulfilling the will and purpose of their God. Others who profess the belief in the same God may have different convictions about the nature and purpose of that God. Still, those who make the statements in question believe that any limitation on them making these statements is an infringement on their religious freedom. This is where we are at right now, along with other matters relating to the alleged right to discriminate among whom you might employ, again on the basis of your religious beliefs. At present, religiously based communities do have many exemptions within this area, which do allow discrimination in various ways. 

To return to the matter of freedom of speech. Last week I happened to notice a person’s top which had printed on it these words:

            Religion: (noun)  Imaginary friend for adults

The words were set out in the style of a dictionary definition.

Exactly why someone chose to wear a garment making this statement is itself interesting, but frankly this statement could be taken as offensive. Perhaps it is intended to be.

I think the idea of God as a friend is a valuable one. It has a long history in biblical thought, in Judaism and Christianity. But this ‘definition’ identifies the idea of God as a friend with religion itself. 

This is where it gets interesting, because that same biblical tradition is filled with what might be called the theological critique of religion. In the bible, God, and the person of Jesus of Nazareth who is central to the Christian faith, trenchantly critical of much religion. God is opposed to religious performances and utterances in the absence of justice, care for the widows and orphans, and the ‘strangers’ or foreigners, refugees and homeless. 

The critique of ‘religion’ is a very strong theme in Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, all of which acknowledge that they can become false or distorted in various unethical and indeed inhumane ways. All demand repentance and restitution if people are to be ‘right with God’. The idea of being ‘righteous’ is a kind of hope and aspiration, which a person or group cannot achieve of their own, but our part in it is to do justice and to be merciful, and for the rest to trust in our divine friend. This God is not, as so many imagine, a demanding and cruel judge.

There is a lot of valuable philosophical scholarship showing that the concept of ‘religion’ as we know it is a modern phenomenon. It emerged with the modern world. Basically it has only been since around 1500 that ‘beliefs’ have been separated into a different form from the way of life, the essentially cultural and everyday business of living and engaging with the world. With this shift, ‘religion’ moved out of the practices and way of life and into the arena of the mind, intellect, and ‘belief’ that might be true or false. Before, ‘true’ religion was not true statements or ideas, which might also be considered false, but truth in practice, what we might call truthfulness. This is much more what the New Testament means by truth and true religion (in the very few places where any such ideas occur, the letters of John and James).

What freedom is being claimed for ‘freedom of religion’? It seems to me the valuable idea at the heart of this debate is the idea that people should indeed act and live truthfully, in accordance with their convictions. The radical Puritans on whose ideas the Baptist church was founded were sufficiently committed to this truth that they were prepared to go to prison or in some instances faced death for being truthful. This was not so much about preaching as about failure to conduct worship events in the manner then demanded by the State churches. 

To speak and act truthfully then requires the theological vision of truthfulness, not just claiming that one’s ideas are ‘true’. At this point the contention flows not only into the sources of one’s ideas (and claims about what the Bible says) but also into morality and lifestyle. Is the statement one claims the freedom to make consistent with the character of the God whom one claims to trust and represent? Is the statement coherent with a life that also (however falteringly) reflects the character of that God? 

Two things emerge from this reflection thus far. First, it is clear that we cannot do without a discussion of what we mean by religion, and I think a discussion of the importance of truthfulness. I am not hopeful that the current crop of politicians in our country are at all interested in the subject of truthfulness. It is this that is necessary if we are to have any kind of genuine protections of religious practice in relation to those of different values and views. Australians deeply respect truthfulness, as opposed to performance, protestations and show. At Bob Hawke’s memorial service last week, Anthony Albanese received immense applause when he quoted the man himself: ‘Why do I have credibility? Because I don’t exude morality.’ Credibility is not about moral superiority, but about truthfulness.

Second, it is just so fundamentally clear that we will go on having awful difficulties as we are at present over ‘freedoms’, of religion and of the press, until we have a Bill of Rights. It is so fundamental. The document itself is not the end point, but the beginning of legal and social process towards communal truthfulness.