We are continuing to hear a lot about protecting “Religious liberties” (which seems to mean Christian liberties) but we are still not hearing much evidence that these liberties are under threat.
So let me go by responses to articles in newspapers and articles I’ve read in favour of new ‘protective’ legislation. These are the liberties people seem to be talking about.
1) People no longer automatically genuflect to people who claim they are preaching the word of God. Given the massive differences in interpretation of that word over history, then even if the Bible did result from the exact dictation of God to various humans, then we still don’t know that the preaching is correct. Secondly, not everybody nowadays genuflects to the word of Marx, Mises, Morrison, Science or whatever. If you have a case put it forward and expect some people to disagree, or not listen. Don’t expect that if you say some group of people are subhuman or will burn in the eternal flames of hell, you will receive automatic praise. Do expect to be able to speak, but don’t expect protection because you think you are saying something vital.
2) Christians should be powerful because they have the truth, and everyone should live by their words. Sorry this is not an argument. This is an assertion.
3) Christians do a great deal of good in society, and should not be discouraged from doing good. Do people really need special privileges to do good? If you really want to help people go and help them. But don’t always expect praise for it. If you want to help people because they should obey you, or your word, then expect to be criticised as anyone else would be. Jesus was not complimentary to those who performed religious duties to gain social status.
4)Some schools are asking people to opt in to participate in Christian festivities like Christmas or Easter plays. This does not stop those interested in Christian tradition from participating, or setting up their own Church based festivities. What it does stop, is Christians assuming that they have the right to impose their views and ceremonies on others unless those others explicitly opt out. This supposed imposition on liberty, is an imposition on Christian dominance, and again Christians by objecting seem to be seeking the right to dominate others by default.
5) Some people are rude to them online. Well that is what online life is like. Try giving a reasoned and heavily documented argument against Trump in a Republican group on Facebook and see how you go. We may not like people being rude, but we cannot stop it for one group of people alone. And besides some Christians are rude to other people, but usually people being rude cannot see their own rudeness. What they are saying seems fair to them.
6) Some people refuse to agree that Christians should be able to persecute other groups of people, even if that group is other Christians. Little case is made as to why Christians should be able to persecute, except they think it is their right because they are always right. But on similar grounds, others have the right to disagree. And note persecute means more than disagreeing with someone. Its means disagreeing with their right to exist or speak at all. You are not being persecuted if you are told your views are rubbish. In many countries where Christians are persecuted, they would probably relish this kind of rubbish persecution.
7) Some TV comedy shows occasionally mock Christians. Some TV shows mock politicians, business people, academics, gays, bogans and so on. Why should all Christians have the privilege of being exempt, even if particular Christians appear corrupt?
8) Religion is good for people and society, therefore religions should not be criticised. The first part of this statement may be true, but if those good effects come about through harming and persecuting others, or scapegoating people who don’t belong to their denominations, then we have a moral dilemma. Can people be religious without condemning and persecuting others, without using violence and exclusion? I would hope so. What happened to the idea that you should set an example to the world, and convince people by your virtues rather than your cruelties?
From a theological point of view, there is nothing Christian about these arguments for privilege. I am not aware of Jesus being reported as saying “Come to me. I will give you social power, material wealth, respect and obedience from your fellows. No one will ever dare object to whatever you say.”
Let’s push this further. The thing Christians have gained the most fame for over the last 20 years is child abuse within Christian organisations. Let’s not be imprecise, and decide to avoid the term ‘child abuse’ as that might suggest the odd blow in anger, or verbal abuse, something anyone might commit on a bad day; we are talking about child rape. Clearly not all Christians were involved in this, and many had exactly the same response to it as non-Christians. However their organisations protected people who had raped children while attacking the victims and trying to silence them. Protecting the reputation of their Christian organisation was more important than protecting children. In this campaign of silence and denial they were usually supported by right wing commentators and politicians who dismissed the allegations, or diminished the numbers of allegations, or pretended that it was not happening. We know that when it all came out, one Church underestimated its fortune by billions, to try and avoid compensating its victims. We have just heard (the truth is not confirmed) that some schools have been sending gay students to organisations who strapped electrodes to their genitals to torture them into being straight. Should we preserve their liberty to do this?
This is corruption.
Sadly, these actions seems to have been acceptable until recently. Most Christians do not seem to have pressed their organisations to uncover the truth and stop the abuse (certainly there were no reports of such mass movements), even though Jesus seems pretty clear that people harming children are not the best people. Most Christians seem to have ignored the issue, even if it was their own children at peril.
If religious liberties legislation had been in place and if people were not allowed to dispute truth with Christians or dismiss the platitudes of their organisations, then the Royal Commission could probably not have happened, and the state of institutional child rape would be preserved. Can you imagine Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison instigating such an inquiry and risking the liberties of the Churches? The whole right wing machine would be devoted to persecuting those who said there was a problem, and the law would be there to help them stop any inquiry. People would be unable to publish accusations. It took an atheist Prime Minister to set up the inquiry. Not a Christian one.
Yes, this is an extreme example, but do we need to protect Christian liberties to attack people, persecute people, not receive disagreement, hide their crimes, and not receive any mockery? What good does it do? What real liberties need preserving? So far there is no case that liberties are curtailed for Christians any more than for other people. There are no examples being given of Christians being stopped from worshipping in their Churches (except by other people in those Churches), reading their Bible, trying to convert other people, or preaching the good news. Christian organisations already get massive privileges in matters of tax, financial reporting, influence on politics and so on.
What the people who are pushing this idea seem to want is not liberty, but guaranteed privilege and immunity.
Tags: religion, social category theory
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment