Under the religious discrimination bill released by the federal government, a so-called “statement of belief” will be protected speech. Such statements will not constitute discrimination against marginalised groups, as long as it is not deemed malicious, or considered to threaten, intimidate, harass, or vilify a person or group.
A note to the draft bill explains a “moderately expressed” religious view would not amount to vilification, and there has been some clarification that statements of faith in breach of professional standards will not be protected. Further, you don’t have to be religious to have statements of faith considered protected speech, and any genuine interpretation of religious doctrine or teachings is covered.
This still leaves a lot unknown. Here are six quotes from the Hebrew Bible (text of Judaism and Christianity) and the Quran (text of Islam). Is it OK to say them under the legislation? We asked our legal correspondent Michael Bradley for his views on some key quotes.
Hebrew Bible
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13
The part about putting gay men to death is likely to be something that a reasonable person would conclude is encouraging the commission of serious offence (murder), so that takes it outside the protection of statements of belief. However, the rest of it, about being gay being an abomination, probably wouldn’t qualify as vilification, making it okay for an employer, for example, to put it on poster in the office and not be liable for sex discrimination.
In pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
Exodus 20:17
This is clearly a statement of belief as defined and doesn’t fall within any of the exceptions. No problem for a psychologist or psychotherapist, being consulted by a female domestic violence victim to let her know that this is their view and that their assistance will be tailored accordingly.
If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall … stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help … and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife.
Ephesians 5:22-23
On one view, this expression is promoting or encouraging the commission of murder, and therefore isn’t protected as a statement of belief, but it could also be argued that it is so extreme that it shouldn’t be taken literally (bearing in mind that adherents of literal faith often resort to the “Oh it’s just a metaphor” tactic when challenged on questions like this). If so, it may still be a statement of faith and OK for the local police commander to include it in the daily briefing to the cops.
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 5:32
Absolutely a statement of faith, not caught by any of the exceptions. It will not be discrimination for a school principal to tell all his or her teaching staff who are divorcees that they are adulterers, and include it on their name tags on orientation day.
Quran
And [we had sent] Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people …’
Quran 7:80-81
This is 100% protected; one of the clear consequences of the new law would be to ensure that anyone in any context can proudly declare that LGBTQI attributes are markers of sin, evil, ultimately painful death and an unpleasant afterlife, without committing an act of discrimination. They can say it, shout it, write it, put it on their T-shirts or paint it on the ceiling.
Those who commit adultery, men or women, give each of them a hundred lashes.
Quran 24: 2
It’d be hard to argue that this imperative is only metaphorical — it’s quite explicit. It will most likely be considered to be promoting a crime, or at least inciting violence, and therefore not a protected statement of belief.
So what does it mean?
It’s important to keep in mind that the bill’s design is to give so-called statements of belief legal immunity in the sense that their expression is not an act of discrimination under any other law. It does not, for example, make it lawful for an employer to sack a person for being gay, divorced or pregnant out of wedlock.
It does make it lawful for the employer to let that person, and everyone else, know that they are an abomination in God’s eyes and will be punished for all eternity. As long as it’s a genuine statement of their genuine religious belief.
It works in reverse too: an atheist employer will be able to lawfully let their Christian employees know that he or she thinks their belief in a divine being is ridiculous and possibly an indicator of mental illness. Just provided that their belief is something they genuinely consider to relate to the fact that they don’t believe in God themselves.
Prepare for anarchy, because, if this goes through, that’s where we’ll be.
I am a regular attendee of the weekly gatherings of my faith community and do not feel at all threatened by the existing range of anti-discrimination legal constraints. My relationship with God is a private matter and is constantly evolving as I come to better understandings of His presence in my life. I hold strong beliefs on the validity of my ‘take’ on God and, while I am dismayed at some of the competing opinions on spirituality but do not see them as a threat to my beliefs nor to my physical well-being except to the extent to which they may validate actions that are against the law. The Federal Government’s proposed amendments to existing laws mark a retreat from fairness, tolerance and respect and, having thus been exposed, should not be proceeded with.
My relationship with the big Fella almost ended when I was run over by a banana truck. I realised my existence depended on fate, chance, kings and desperate men to quote a great English poet. If the big Fella keeps an eye on those intangibles I’ll be right.
Honestly, I cannot believe that we are still debating this anachronistic (or logic dictates it should be) drivel these days.
Discussing religious tosh in this way implies that the content is to be taken seriously. This is like discussing the veracity of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, or Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
As my father used to say, “It is all too silly for words.” How right he was.
Another familiar comment: “You couldn’t make it up”. Apparently somebody did.
Someone (some people) with very colorful imaginations, not to mention a desire to control and extract wealth from the rest of a gullible population.
The (or a) problem is that its not anachronistic – it is of our time, and it does need to be taken seriously, at least to the extent that emboldened god-botherers will now go out of their way to antagonise others so that they can feel persecuted and thus truly closer to their god. Just another facet to our decaying times.
But sadly, it is taken seriously by many. Some 62% of Americans I believe.
As a practising Pastafarian; I’m thrilled to now be able to openly and loudly mock and discriminate against Christians who stupidly believe that the universe WASN’T created by a blind drunk Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Do you wear a colander on your head on Wednesdays?
I used to; but found it too much of a strain.
Great collection of quotes.
So the intention is to protect statements quoting bigoted archaic scripture that are diametrically at odds with the law and social norms, so long as the references to violence are omitted. FFS, why are we debating this nonsense?
Because the ‘Word of God’ offers an explanation for our (even if mostly unconscious) existential terror (eg, looking at an infinite night sky, not comprehending it, and knowing we will die).
Why in this day and age do people feel afraid of the universe or of death and have to make up stories about it still?! The universe is marvellous and humbling as is nature and death is clearly a natural part of life and folks should just be happy to enjoy the time in the sun while they have it! Or not as the case may be. We’re not in the Dark Ages now…
In the Dark the Sleep of Reason produces Monsters who revel in their power over the weak minded, aka believer.
Aren’t we? Some members of the Liberal Party would gleefully light the bonfire beneath Bruno if given the chance.
I thought that you were being sarcastic by using quotes around Word of God, but no, you really do believe that a 2000 year old book is still the latest word in philosophy.
because being told that we might be consigned to eternal damnation because we worshipped in slightly the wrong way is so comforting.
“The Word of God” is actually the word of men in search of God (which is why I used the quotes), which begs the the question: why have most men been searching for God – and still are – since the beginning of human recorded history? That’s the question I attempted to shed some light on. Being conscious, mortal and self aware in an incomprehensible universe….maybe not all that comforting for many people. The fact that religions prescribe Hell for non-believers is part of religion’s self-reinforcing mechanism; believe in God, and heaven awaits.
The odd thing there is only one Reality. Religious freedom is all very well, but its time Men agreed on a description of Reality. Mr Morrison is committed to Christ as Lord, Muslims to Allah, Jews to Jehovah, Hindus to thousands of Gods, Buddhists to acceptance of the unknown.
Because the PM is one of them. He said the’ evil one’ is amongst Ye and wears a red rosette.
The brain responds to feelings over facts. Combine that with encultured confirmation biases, and its a short road to the dark ages, whee we are headed. Brain might beat brawn, but brains are no match for the vibes man.