Religious establishment: it's back to the 17th century

Charles Richardson writes: from www.crikey.com.au

This year could be remembered as the year the 17th century came back to haunt us.

First was the revival of the debate over torture, which the English-speaking world was supposed to have settled more than three hundred years ago. Now, in Australia, we find ourselves arguing about the establishment of religion.

For many centuries, it was taken for granted in the West that promotion of religion was one of the core functions of government. As long as religious uniformity could be taken for granted, that didn't upset anyone very much. But that assumption fell apart with the Reformation in the 16th century.

The result was a long period of religious war, followed in turn by a dawning recognition that imposing religion by government fiat was divisive and counterproductive. Eventually countries came to embrace religious toleration: belief should remain a private matter, with no "official" religion.

Hence provisions like section 116 of the Australian constitution, which, echoing similar provisions in the US Bill of Rights and elsewhere, provides that "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."

When the federal government first made grants to religious schools, it raised the question of whether this was an "establishment" of religion.

In 1981, the High Court rejected the American precedents and ruled that it was not. Now John Howard proposes to wade further into that disputed territory with his plan for government-funded school chaplains.

Unlike the simple grant of operating funds to church schools, the chaplains plan necessarily involves the government deciding what religious teachings are permissible – exactly the sort of decision from which the establishment clause was supposed to exclude the government.

As Andrew Lynch remarks in today's Age, "Talk of insulating religion from the power of the state is not merely a resort to a vague ideal. It has clear constitutional text behind it."

The plan also contains a deliberate bias in favour of religion: only religious chaplains will be funded, not secular counsellors. Secular schools will therefore be disadvantaged, since they are less likely to agree on which chaplain to appoint.

If that does not fall foul of section 116, it's hard to see what would.

Time for some perspective on the Sheik

Mirko Bagaric, author and lawyer, writes:

Hang on a minute, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali didn’t kill anyone. The Sheik has been getting hammered front and centre in the media for nearly a week for his crass s-xist comments. Lost in all this anti-analysis is the fact that he didn’t do anything which directly harmed another person. On a scale of harm, it is far less damaging to say something, as opposed to inflicting suffering on others.

It is outrageous that the Sheik has been pilloried by the media and the community far more than any religious or community leader who in recent times has been guilty of actual s-xual misconduct against women and sometimes even children.

The most obvious reason for this is the anti-Muslim sentiment that exists in the community and media. That’s the first illuminating point to take from the Sheik saga.

Still, the Sheik wasn’t helped by the Muslim community, which is cannibalising itself by enthusiastically joining the Sheik lynch mob. A more mature and organised group would have apologised on behalf of the Sheik and sent him out quietly to pasture for a few months for some attitudinal re-wiring. Talk of sacking the Sheik should not have been entertained – we all make mistakes.

The other main lesson to be drawn from this saga is that a robust right to free speech is crucial to forging a progressive and fair community. But for this to occur we have to be tolerant towards the expression of even loopy views.

Despite the misguided nature of the Sheik’s comments, we are still better off for the fact that he felt free to express his comments, as opposed to peddling them quietly to impressionable minds. This way the community had the opportunity to rebut his outdated views with a healthy dose of the truth.

Of course there are limits to free speech. We can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema or spread lies which defame people and cause them harm. It is also wrong to say things that incite violence.

The alarmist and overly punitive response to the Sheik’s comments makes it less likely that people in similar positions will air their controversial ideas in the public domain. This is a pity. We thereby lose the capacity to neutralise other misguided ideas by copious amounts of realism, to the point where they are consigned to the realms of delusional fiction.

Silence is a decree we should all fear

As I mentioned below that we should defend the rights of Sheik Hilaly to say things that we find incredibly offensive - at the same time encouraging him to change his mind. The reasons why are spelt out all too clearly in this article by Umberto Eco.

Just so aliens know we are crazy

Just in case SETI proves to find something else out there, the good folks in Idaho have made an oversized proclaimation on the side of the Earth.

Australian Muslim Sheik Up

Here are the comments that started the storm that are now plaguing the Australian Muslim community.

"If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy.

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it. "

As a result of these comments there have been calls for him to have his residency stripped, to stop preaching, and for the legality of these statements (and others reported by the Australian that claim he praised jihadists) investigated.

It appears that he has no intention of resigning, which appears to be a soft stance from the muslim community and almost an endorsement of these values that were espoused. This course of action also seems completely characteristic of the actions of other muslim communities depicted in the documentary Obsession.

However, if these values aren't endorsed by the muslim community it would seem that anything short of removing the Sheik from his position of influence would be unnacceptable. At the same time, it should be noted that it would seem inappropriate to prosecute the Sheik for saying these things, and for supporting the cause of jihadists - despite the provisions for this being in Australian law. Why would it be innapropriate? Because of freedom of speech. Is it not more beneficial that we hear the Sheik say these things so we can challenge these ideas? Is it not more beneficial that we allow the Sheik to say these things, so that we can say things that others whom hold values incompatible with ours will not be able to prosecute us for exercising our freedom?

Silencing anybody's right to speak is a slippery slope, we should be glad we have heard the Sheiks point of view, and the public outrage is currently being sufficient in addressing these radical ideas.

Dawkins Leads The New Atheists

It would seem that religious discussion is alive and well in the tech community, which quite often can come across as an enlightened bunch. This discussion at digg shows the flavour of diversity of opinion, and the main link to Wired gives some insight into the direction culture may be headed. Many of Dawkin's arguements sync well with Yoism, however others seem to fall down with his rejection of all religion and fanatical embracing of all things Atheist, and leaving no room for human spirituality. If you have the time, it is all worth a read, particularly the diversity of opinion on Digg.

Religious activists combine to fight global warming

In this article, "Churches take action to increase global warming awareness" from the New York Times, the author explains how a variety of faiths are now banding together to increase activism to fight the threat of global warming.If the power of religious movements has shown us anything to date, then this is a great thing.

Meanwhile Australia suffers its worst drought on record and UCL has put a handy drought monitor here. It seems to be as dry as a dead dingo's donger.

The Economics of Religion

With most religions, it isn't uncommon for a church to ask for money to help build towards the goals of the religious order. However, with many religions, the lure of money can often corrupt, or be used in appropriately, or donation can even be required for belonging to the faith. Just turn on your late night TV in Australia, or have a look at some of Hill Song's financial dealings.

Besides the fact religious institutions aren't subject to tax (which should probably be rectified), religion may also be a factor in building wealth in a country. . To look closer at this major driving force in people's lives, Baylor University has awarded a $378,862 grant to study the Economics of religion.