Tuesday, January 04, 2005

OFFENDERS ON BOTH SIDES?

By constantly demanding that people give up their personal religious beliefs merely because they happen to be on public property at the time, First Amendment guarantees of freedom of worship, speech, and assembly are being violated. At the same time, those who would insist that the government take on the characteristics of a majority religion are violating the same precepts even as they engage in discriminatory behaviors to boot. It's these extremist positions that are causing still more trouble.

Those citizens and public officials who do their utmost to force others to recognize their religious beliefs by posting the Ten Commandments or crosses on public property are begging for lawsuits. Their prayers (pun intended) are frequently answered. Meanwhile, those who are on a crusade to strip all mention of religion from the public even when those mentions are being made by private citizens (consider paving bricks used as fundraisers, for example, which some maintain shouldn't be allowed any religious content) are violating the very statutes they claim to be trying so hard to uphold. As a result, the fight is becoming even more bitter and making inroads into areas where such opinion truly has no place.

As you read this, a Texas pastor is being sued for having disciplined a congregant according to the rules of the church. A woman who committed adultery refused to repent. So, in accordance with church belief, the pastor of her church advised the congregation she was no longer a member there and offered a biblical explanation as to why her membership was being revoked. The woman subsequently sued the pastor. While a lower court ruled in favor of the minister, an appeals court reversed that ruling. The case is now being appealed to the Texas State Supreme Court.

If the woman's secular boss had disciplined her according to his personal religious beliefs, I'd agree that the woman has a case. But there's a certain set of beliefs one must accept when one follows one religious faith or another. Since the woman failed to adhere to those beliefs, the pastor has every right to disassociate himself and his church from her. After all, to go back to the example of an employer, the woman would certainly be fired if she proved herself incapable of doing the job for which she was hired. There's little if any difference here in practice; in reality, the biggest difference is the one that makes the pastor's decision even more unquestionable, and that is the fact it's a religious issue which should be decided solely by religious authorities. If the courts continue to rule in the woman's favor, the First Amendment will be dealt a significant blow.

In the meantime, the holidays are rapidly approaching and few seem inclined to stop fighting either the constraints or reliefs offered by the First Amendment. Instead, they go shopping and wrap toys in shiny packages but are offended when others mention that part of the reason behind all of this gift-giving has to do with Judaism or Christianity. In fact, many object to the barest mention that those particular religions have anything to do with anything, even during Hanukkah or on Christmas.

Conversely, there are those who look down their pious noses at those who choose not to celebrate religiously, and who demand that their own religious viewpoints be not only acknowledged but given preferential treatment. These are the people who, since a majority in America are Christian, think that those who aren't should just sit down, shut up, and bow their heads out of respect when others are leading them in Christian prayer.

I've jumped up and down more than once with objections to those who would impose their religion on others. I feel exactly the same way about those who would demand their non-religion receive any more - or less - respect than that due their opposites. Both sides need to remember that there can be no freedom of worship when worship is either mandated or prohibited. The government ought to try to remember that, too, as well as to recall that equal treatment would better involve positive inclusion and thus the most possible freedom, rather than across-the-board discrimination and a universal quashing of the right to worship as one sees fit.

In the spirit of the First Amendment, have a happy...well, enjoy whatever it is you celebrate this time of year. Perhaps more people this year will finally begin to consider letting other people celebrate whatever it is they celebrate, too, and without complaint. Now that would be a real gift!

More here



A giant wakes to shake the world

From Michael Duffy:

"We are in the middle of an amazing revival of confidence in Western values. Wherever you look, leaders are saying things that were unfashionable, even inconceivable, for decades. They are doing things that show a renewed faith in our Western traditions. For decades many in the West have been running scared. Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell's motto is: "Be Not Afraid". He chose this not because he's a wimp - he could have played Australian Rules for Richmond - but in recognition of the fact so many of us were so afraid for so long.

Consider Aboriginal affairs. It's been obvious for more than a decade that our policies have been a disastrous failure for most Aborigines in remote communities. But if you said this publicly you were branded a racist. So no one said anything, because we were afraid. Because of this silence, Aboriginal people continued to suffer violence, bad health, substance abuse and other evils. But all of a sudden it's possible to point to the problems and suggest new solutions. Noel Pearson has been talking about the evil of welfare dependency but now he's being joined by new voices. Like the Aboriginal community in the Kimberley who this month said they were happy to take better care of the health of their kids in return for petrol bowsers. Like Aboriginal leaders Warren Mundine and Wesley Aird who've just said we should reconsider Aboriginal communal land ownership.

Make no mistake, this is a huge issue, and it's a major breakthrough that Aborigines have put it on the agenda. When Aborigines are given land rights they receive the land as a group and have to manage it as a group. They can never sell it. Often this means nothing gets done with the land, because groups are reluctant to embrace change. It also means the main asset of most Aborigines - their land - is locked up. This has the effect of chaining many Aboriginal people to places where there is no work and which will never be part of the broader economy. Places where there are no hospitals or even doctors within hundreds of kilometres. So breaking this link with the land is the best thing that could happen to Aborigines. I'm not talking of ripping them off. I'm talking about giving them the same sort of economic freedom and access to services that is available to other Australians.

Of course those proposing these new approaches are accused of racism and paternalism. But suddenly these accusations don't matter so much. People are no longer afraid. We're seeing something similar in the Pacific. Australia has sent troops or police into East Timor, the Solomons and now PNG. Ten years ago this would have been inconceivable and seen by many people here and overseas as recolonialisation. But something important has happened. Australians have again recognised the superiority of many of our institutions and traditions. We've accepted we are strong and no longer afraid to use that strength for good, even if this means attracting accusations of paternalism, racism, recolonialisation . . . This is an enormous change.

We're seeing it elsewhere, with Iraq the biggest example. We invaded Iraq to impose democracy there. The hope was that this would inspire reform in other Arab countries, which are all dictatorships or oligarchies. America botched the occupation, and whether it succeeds or fails remains to be seen.

But there's something in common behind it and the other examples of Western confidence I've mentioned. Many in the West have done a lot of thinking since September 11 and the Bali bombing. We've had to think not just about the people who did these things but the people they did them to ourselves. This has alerted us to our weaknesses, but it has also given many of us a renewed sense of our own strengths. I think we will see more examples of moral confidence from our leaders in the next year.

The Department of Community Services will start to ignore criticism that it is breaking up families, and remove more children from dangerous situations. Australia will take an even stronger role in the Pacific. Black and white leaders, no longer afraid of accusations of paternalism, will introduce policies that actually work for Aboriginal Australians. We in the West have our problems. We should not be arrogant - but nor should we be afraid".

No comments: