Thursday, 17 January 2013

The right of religions to discriminate

Labor's new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is currently in front of a Senate inquiry, is causing a stir within some circles. I say a few, because it's not really front page stuff. Religions have discriminated against particular groups for centuries, and even the most progressive churches still discriminate. (You can't be an Anglican bishop without first being Anglican!). Though what has become an issue, is whether the government is justified in securing the right of religious organisations to discriminate when it comes to services they provide, like hospitals and schools.

It is well known that most religions organisations don't recognise, respect or tollerate certain practices; from homosexuality to unmarried couples. Often these groups that are marginalised become (or already are) secular or atheist because of this. Though there are some who wish to identify with a particular religion, despite not being fully accepted by their chosen religious organisation. There are many reasons as to why this occurs, yet the main rational is because they personally get a tangible benefit from identifying with that faith. Be it a good feeling that they will have an eternal life, or the comfort of being accepted within a particular community. Religion brings a benefit to people who subscribe to it.

But that benefit is severely diminished when the value that is placed upon particular practices and beleifs, is erroded by the state or others. The Australian constitution protects freedom of religion. That allows individuals to freely associate with religions of their choice and not be discriminated against because of that, but it also allows religious organisations to operate independently from the rules of a secular state. Most often this is held to mean they don't pay tax. But it is much more. Religious organisations don't have to subscribe to a particular organisational structure like a public company does. Nor are they required to change their belief from creationism to evolution because the state doesn't believe in it. This freedom enables religious organisations to run themselves in the way they and their members see fit, not the public or secular government. Just because the state believes discrimination is abhorrent, does not mean it can impose that value on a religion.

People of similar faith congregate around each other for a 'shared' experience. They get meaning and benefit from existing in such a close and similar community. Religions that discriminate, actively choose to do so because that is (typically) what the majority of the congregation want. If the majority of members of the Catholic church accepted the notion of abortion, they would not excommunicate members who receive one. While not completely approving of it, most of the Catholic church has stopped excommunicating members who get divorced. (It was a bad retention strategy.) Some Anglican churches have 'gay only' services that particularly target gay Christians. Why? Because that is what the Church as a whole wants. Religion morphs over time and some faiths modernise, others don't. What's most important is that the ones that don't still bring value to the people who believe in such orthodox faiths. The 'purity' of their religion comes not from just being able to exclude those who are divorced, gay, or had an abortion, but those from other faiths, those who don't truly follow their practices. And this is why for religion, discrimination is is a tool that enables practice.

As a free citizen, you have no right to access a religion. You may choose your faith, but you have no right to demand access to your faiths organisation. As a Christian, you can't walk into a Synagog and demand a Rabbi give you a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. They wouldn't allow it on religious grounds. It would be against teachings, current orthodoxy or because its members find it disrespectful and 'immoral'. It doesn't matter if this was something of your choosing or not, because the rest of the church's religious practice is harmed. If you disagree with their religious view, change the church you attend, change that organisation and it's members viewpoint, or start your own religion (hello Church of England). It is completely within the rights of a religious organisation to discriminate against certain people, so they can actually provide the religious benefits that its members want. The government shouldn't shy away from defending this right to discriminate. Otherwise churches, religious ceremonies and certain practices just become "acts for hire" by members of the public who want to gawk at people in funny costumes.

When it comes to a religion discriminating against an individual for a "public services" they want, it becomes a trickier issue. A religious organisation which receives public funds to run a service, such as a school or hospital, should not be able to discriminate on who they hire or who they let in the front door. Government funds come from an assumed secular source, the taxpayer. The funds are not there to help provide better services to one religion, but to any citizen who may wish to access those services. Funds that are raised privately by churches are for the sole purpose of assisting those they wish to assist, mainly those who are interested in their faith. It is perfectly acceptable for a privately run religious school to deny homosexual teachers from working there, as it is to bar non religious students from going to that school.

It sounds horrible if you are in that minority. And most people are, as you can't be part of every faith. Yet those with such strong strong beliefs who want to bar and discriminate so as to guard their faith and its practices, need to be protected. For some this is done by not having a gay priest. For others it's not having a sinner in the pews. Those who wish to access a special religious social service, like a Catholic hospital or Islamic school, do it for a religious reason. They want their child to be taught a certain way, they want a particular kind of care, or only want to be surrounded by certain people. If that's their wish, they or their church can pay and provide for that particular religious service. They pay for a service that comes with a complimentary sermon. As for everyone else who is considered a minority, there are many local secular government services provided, from hospitals to community housing. So let those with a strong faith live and receive their services as they wish.


Links: 
Gillard's bizarre act of faith leaves vulnerable unprotected - National Times
Anti-gay rights to stay - Sydney Morning Herald
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012: Explanatory Notes - Attorney Generals Department

Monday, 14 January 2013

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to!

The US has long struggled to pass meaningful law reform on gun control and ownership. If it hasn't been the National Rifle Association (NRA) watering down policy, it has been the Supreme Court overruling it but upholding the second amendment of the constitution. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has inspired many on Capitol Hill to modify existing laws. While some political pundits and commentators are optimistic that the small progress that can be made now will set a trend for more discussion and policy in the future, there isn't much to be optimistic about. Passing small, watered down and compromised policy in the aftermath of an unparallelled national tragedy, only raises the bar for when policy discussion can occur again. It just affirms that policy will only ever follow after tragedy.

Joe Biden's "there is no silver bullet" approach (ignoring the politically incorrect pun), does have some merit. Yet in attempting to be holistic, it has become sidetracked with issues not directly related to gun violence and gun control. There is degree of dissent amongst experts and social scientists regarding the link between violent videogames and gun violence. Regardless of the link, current laws are too lax at preventing children from being exposed and participating in videogame violence. Though it really is skirting around the main issue of gun control when almost anyone is able to access a gun in the first place, because the NRA and other lobby groups have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass laws to restrict or even control sales.

The NRA is really clutching at straws trying to defend the right of US citizens to bear arms. Sadly though, their pathetic catch phrases and argumentation work.
"...this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans"
Given that the NRA lobbied to put a clause in Obama's healthcare reform policy that prevented the US government from collecting data on gun ownership, can we verify this claim? When 40% of gun sales in the US occur without background checks, how do we know these people pay taxes, are hardworking, or are even honest enough to say who they really are? It's a desperate attempt by the NRA hide reality with meaningless rhetoric.

Even when the NRA doesn't cry out against gun reform, many US citizens do, claiming they have a right to protect themselves and their families. I couldn't agree more with them. But I strongly disagree in their desired method of how they want to defend themselves. Let's say you want a gun to protect yourself from a home intruder. A gun is both a very big threat to that intruder, and it can be used to stop someone from breaking into your house and hurting you. All you need is gun with 4 or less bullets, depending on how bad your aim is and how many people you're expecting to try and break into your house. But an assault weapon with an extended clip of more than 100 bullets isn't needed to ward off your local burglar. That's the kind of weapon used to take on the FBI, SWAT or US Army. So in that circumstance you're not really wanting a gun to protect your family, but you're looking for a mass killing machine that will allow you to overpower anyone or anything that comes in your way. That's not self defence, but mass murder.

The mantra of "self defence"and "protection" by the NRA, gun lobby groups and gun toting citizens really doesn't lend much weight to their claim for gun ownership. It is a mantra to have more police officers, more home security, a right to have personal panic rooms and to sleep with a baseball bat beside your bed. You may have a right to defend yourself from a burglar or random aggressor walking down the street, but you do not have a right to kill them. And what's a gun really for? It's not a tazor gun which incapacitates, or baton which can ward off and injure someone, or pepper spray which causes temporary blindness. It's a contraption that shoots small metal balls at high speeds, designed to kill a target. It's not a defensive weapon. Even if it is, there are better alternatives available, eliminating the right for US citizens to "bear arms", but to now use more sophisticated personal defence devices. And that is a discussion the NRA really doesn't want anyone to have.

Links: 
How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate - The Atlantic
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority - Huffington Post
Joe Biden meets games companies as gun control taskforce readies proposals - The Guardian
White House has 'agenda to attack the second amendment', says NRA - The Guardian