  |
22 June 2009
The threat to freedom of religion and the right to associate
Radio 3AW693 is Melbourne's top-rating talkback station. Regular visitors to this site will know that I have frequently commented on morning host Neil Mitchell's incorrigible anti-religious prejudice. Derryn Hinch is just as bad on the drive shift late afternoons, though I don't often listen to him because of my daily activities - and because I've heard all he has to say. For many months I have not paid Mitchell or Hinch any attention, not because they have suddenly given honest thought to their rigid views, but because my attention has been engaged elsewhere.
On Wednesday afternoon, 17th June, towards the end of the long car trip from Sydney to Melbourne I tuned into Hinch's drive program curious to see how long it would take for the subject of religion to come up and for Hinch to regale us with the usual cockeyed reasoning that is meant to justify his prejudiced views. Instead of Hinch, I got Tom Elliott, who apparently takes the reins when the master is otherwise indisposed.
Tom Elliott is 3AW's commentator on economic and financial matters. He is also the son of John Elliott who enjoys a certain notoriety in Australia. He (John) was found guilty of... But wait. This sounds like the beginning of a smear, doesn't it? And it would be grossly unfair to smear Tom Elliott with the alleged misdemeanours of his father, wouldn't it? Tom Elliott, to be fair, should be judged on what he is and does, not because of any sort of prejudice against or alleged action of his father. I will come back to the matter of smear tactic in a moment.
Though I do not always pay close attention to Tom Elliott's spots he comes across as sensible and knowledgeable about his field of expertise. Sadly, it is in the social and moral area that he is less than convincing. On many social and moral issues, Elliott toes the PC line religiously. And it is on religious belief and religious organizations that he has a particular tic - like his 3AW colleagues.
Within the half-hour, he followed in Hinch's program track and homed in on the shocking injustice of religious schools insisting on their right to enrol and employ people whose behaviour and views are consistent with the views and purpose of the school and to exclude those whose views are opposed to those views and purpose. He brought up the question because the exemptions in anti-discrimination legislation that allow religious schools to refuse such people is at this time being reviewed. He thinks the "inconsistency" should be removed and the legislation rigorously applied.
...when it comes to religion, in the past
the state govt has thrown up its hands and said many sorts of discrimination
are permissible. Religious schools, for example, have been free for some
time to refuse employment to those of other faiths, or presumably those who
have no faith at all.
Well perhaps change is in the air, and not before time.
In this comment, I am not going to dwell too much on the legislative questions and the rights issues raised. Regular readers will know I think there is plenty of evidence that legislation is being manipulated these days by unelected faceless people behind the scenes to advance political agendas. Here, I simply want to make comment on the reasoning with which Elliott pursues his case because he representative of his class and because he has the means to broadcast his arguments and views to a wide audience.
For the ordinary person it would seem non-controversial that an association, constituted in a proper lawful way, be allowed to accept only members who are at one with its views and purpose. It would not make sense for a person to seek and be allowed to join a cricket club, or fill one of its paid administrative positions, if that person hated cricket and thought the community would be better off with less cricket, and would do much better if there were no cricket at all. What sense would it be for a person loudly contradicting the essential political platform of the Labor Party to insist on membership and to cry discrimination if he were not considered for one of its paid administrative positions? Such people in reality would not be employed. This is commonsense. The ordinary person has no problem with it. The PC mind, on the record, has little respect for commonsense when the political objectives have priority. And it operates in an rampant tangle of theoretical undergrowth.
Elliott's first callers argued from the position of commonsense, making the above point but without the same analogy. From Elliott's manner and tone, it appeared that he thought he was dispatching their objections with ease. I think he has high respect for his dialectical powers.
I was gratified that the majority of callers were taking issue with Elliott. It is a good sign. But then the caller that I was expecting came on the line, the one full of unedited and unabashed abuse and ridicule for people with religious belief. There are thousands of them on the internet ready to spew their hatred of religion at the first hint of the subject. There is no argument, merely the usual claim that is to be found amid the ignorant abuse.
Elliott's caller sneered at religious belief as "fairytales at the bottom of the garden" and dismissed people of faith as stupid. Their stupidity disqualifies them; there is thus no political basis for their associations, and thus the discussion of whether their associations have rights is meaningless and superfluous.
He didn't say it in these words. He was clearly not capable, his mind being at the level of fire and water. It was what he meant in tagging people of faith as stupid. His more articulate like-minded companions hiding behind government and non-government committees reviewing legislation are in complete agreement with him, though they are usually careful how they express their opinion in public. Only professional anti-religious bigots and hypocrites like Phillip Adams secure on ABC radio can permit themselves to be so explicit.
To demonstrate my point, Elliott's dialectic evaporated and he dared to say what many of his PC colleagues would not admit to publicly. He said he "agreed" with the caller but would not put it "so bluntly". And like his caller he offered no argument to support his agreement.
I have a scoop for Tom Elliott and those like him - particularly for those overseeing the review of the exceptions and exemptions in the anti-discrimination legislation: The claim that people of faith are necessarily stupid and ignorant and thus incompetent is provable neither a priori or by observation.
Elliott's ignorant ocker caller would have no idea of the distinction in reasoning I have just made. I wonder whether Elliott is aware of the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. He should. In his reply to his callers he was continually using an analogical argument (as I have done above). An analogical argument is an inductive argument. An inductive argument, though capable of validity, does not give necessary truth. It gives probable truth, depending on its construction. Thus the analogical argument Elliott uses is of central interest in the discussion, not only here but in the whole review that is taking place of the exemption clauses. I will return in a moment to Elliott's analogical argument.
There is no set of true premises that will give the necessary conclusion that people of faith are stupid. Each attempt will rest on an assumption or empirical evidence, granted of course that a conclusion follows logically from the premises. With bigots that certainly cannot be guaranteed. If anyone thinks they have such a set of premises I would like to hear them. That leaves empirical evidence - the evidence of observation.
For a claim resting on empirical evidence that all people of faith are stupid and incapable of reasoning, each observed case of a person admitting religious belief would have to demonstrate the claim unequivocally. One successful counter case will destroy the claim. But, of course, the claim is patent nonsense. People of faith are found at the highest levels of government and of intellectual and literary activity. Moreover, some of the great trail-blazing scientists of the past have been Christians.
The latest edition of the Annals Australasia: Journal of Catholic Culture, edited by Fr Paul Stenhouse MSC PhD includes an article by Al Kresta that deals precisely with the subject of the Catholic Church and science. Kresta provides a far from exhaustive list of clergy and laypeople who have been trail-blazing scientists. Among those he lists are: Msgr George Lemaitre (Big Bang theory); Abbot Gregor Mendel, (genetics); Franciscan Friar Roger Bacon, (laws of science); Fr Marin Mersenne (acoustics); Antoine Lavoisier (modern chemistry); Blaise Pascal (hydrostatics); and Archdeacon Nicolaus Copernicus (heliocentrism).
What I am outlining here is so obvious and fundamental in terms of reasoning and historical fact that it is a travesty to have to explain it - as I have done a number of times before. It is also an indictment of the level of political discourse one encounters in the media. But then again, I have to continually remind myself that reason, logic, truth and historical fact are of little concern to the powerbrokers of the dominant political class whose political objectives override all else. Reason, logic and truth and history are invoked when they serve the political objective. Otherwise its smear and manipulation. Some of the dominant political class's foremost agitators will never cease to project the image of the Christian as stupid and irrational. This smear is one of their most powerful and effective political weapons. It is also a warning of the fascist direction the nation is turning in.
Let me now return to the argument Elliott ran to support his claim that the exemptions for religious establishments to the anti-discrimination laws must be deleted. This is a question of fairness and justice, he said. No business (whatever) by law would be allowed to employ only Catholics. No business would be allowed to employ only Protestants. Similarly no business would be allowed to employ only atheists. There is no reason then that religious schools should be allowed to employ only people of their faith. Implicit in the argument, though Elliott left it out, is the additional proposition that religious schools are a business just like any other business. But surely this is the crucial point.
I have no issue with an anti-discrimination law that forbids a business excluding people other than on the basis of the competencies required for a particular position in the business. The person most suitable for the position in terms of qualifications and experience should get the job. (Employment depends on factors other than qualifications and experience, as any employer and employee knows - as Tom Elliott would certainly know. And I could run a counter argument from this point, but for the ease of argument here I will leave this aside.)
I agree with Elliott here, as would any fair person of faith or otherwise. So the front issue is whether a religious school is a business in the same way that Myer, Coles, BHP, General Motors, BMW and so on are businesses. But clearly it is not. And this is where Elliott's analogical argument breaks down and where my analogical argument comparing a religious school with a sports club or a political party is far more accurate and far stronger.
Myer and BHP are businesses that are established to sell a range of products, make a profit and provide a living for their owners and workers. This is a business's essential nature. This is not at all what a religious school is essentially. A religious school is essentially an association of like-minded people with a distinct philosophy or outlook or vision and with the purpose of educating their children in that vision, bringing them up to understand and appreciate the values of that vision.
We are moving now into the category of parental authority and responsibility, where the state must remain at a distance. Otherwise there is a loss or even a denial of parental rights. Some of Elliott's callers brought up this point, saying they had the right to educate their children the way they saw fit, to which he replied that the state can and does intervene in what they do with their children. Here the question of competing rights rears its head, a question that Elliott appeared utterly oblivious to. In saying that the state can and does intervene in the parental area he seemed to be running the argument that if it is permitted to intervene in one aspect it is permitted to intervene in all aspects, a conclusion which unfortunately does not follow. Elliott is not the only one guilty of this sort of fallacy. I will come back to the issue of competing rights.
A religious school can be thought of as a large family, and like a family there are economic exigencies: money is needed for teaching and for building and maintenance. There is no question of activity for profit; money is subordinate to the vision and purpose of the association. Special teachers are required and those teachers must be paid a living salary.
A school, then, is a far cry from a business, as a business is normally understood. It is a different entity. Elliott's argument therefore fails.
Elliott used a second argument to support his position, though he was vague and unsure about it. I will call it the argument from diversity. He appeared to be saying that diversity is a good that the community ought to encourage. There is general consensus in the community on this point. Therefore religious schools must employ people that will promote diversity. He meant in particular homosexuals and other people who are energetically opposed to all a religious school stands for.
This sort of messy thinking is common in many of those using the media to lecture the rest of us. There is really no coherent argument here to review. To start with Elliott and others must explain what they mean by "diversity" so that it can be demonstrated how diversity is a good that ought to be promoted. Does diversity refer to the individual or to associations, groups, clubs and organizations? I am inclined to think the latter while Elliott is referring in his argument to the former. Individuality, also considered a good, is about the person; diversity is about associations etc.
Second, it would seem to me that in undermining the unique character of a particular school by forcing it to employ people sworn to destroy its vision and values (a Satanist may present with the best "qualifications" for a teaching position) one is actually eliminating diversity in the community. Third, granted that diversity (whatever is meant) ought to be encouraged, it seems a big leap to go from a good that ought to be encouraged to the legal prescription that it must be accepted as policy by all associations, and associations must accept a range of people of whatever thinking to satisfy that policy. It is all too mad to go on with...
But mad though it may be, there is a more serious consideration here. If, as a government, you are prepared to go down the track of this sort of social rearrangement, you are on a track away from what most people understand as a liberal society. Here we arrive at the core objection to the proposal to eliminate the exemptions to the anti-discrimination legislation. That core objection is that the proposal is discriminatory in essence denying two fundamental human rights: the right to follow one's religious belief (or freedom of religion) and the right to associate.
A right is an effective right when it is fully protected. A religious school's freedom of religion and right to associate is not protected when a government can force that school to employ a majority of teachers that are vigorously opposed to all the school stands for. Theoretically it is possible under the proposed changes to the legislation. The winning applicant for all teaching positions on the basis of what would be required in a business may be opposed to the views and purpose of the school. The association as conceived could not continue. And it does not end at the level of theory. Many people and groups have shown amply that they would not hesitate to take advantage of the legislative changes. But this requires further discussion.
My object in this comment was to counter the arguments run by 3AW's Tom Elliott for the elimination of the exemptions to the anti-discrimination legislation. Elliott is representative of the thinking of a powerful class in our society. I believe I have shown that those arguments fail.
Below are the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia's entry on Freedom of association:
Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association has been included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments, including the US constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Freedom of association in the sense of workers' right to organize and collectively bargain is also recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Conventions.
The right to freedom of association is sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of assembly. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument etc) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.
Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com
  |