The Straw Man is about to burst!

The straw man mock-up of the Religious Discrimination Bill is getting stuffier with every passing day.

It wasn’t enough for Judith Ireland and Luke Beck to write a couple of fictional pieces last week for Fairfax. Their collation of hypotheticals have been mistaken by some readers as fact, but in the end, their scaremongering ended up belittling religious and irreligious Australians alike!

DkoLqKDV4AA5nEn

Apparently, the straw man has yet more room to fill. A string of articles this week (once again thanks to our friends at Fairfax) have continued to make hay out of the Religious Discrimination Bill. This overstuffed straw man is about ready to burst, even before they even finishing preparing to light the bonfire.

Take, for example, The Royal Women’s Hospital. According to reporting in yesterday’s The Age, they are arguing that the Religious Discrimination Bill will lead to Doctors refusing to perform abortions and even to abortion freedoms being stifled.

First, Doctors are already protected by law to refuse to perform an abortion. Second, and contrary to the straw man, this Bill is primarily aimed at protecting already existing freedoms of religious Australians, not introducing new rights. Third, if abortions laws are tightened in the future, it won’t be the consequence of this Bill but because Australians once again acknowledge that unborn children are human beings and therefore must be treated with due dignity and worth.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby has joined the fray with a piece in The Age, arguing that the Bill will divide Australians and not unite them.

What is Michael Kirby’s evidence that this will be the case? For the most part, he entertains a similar line of hypotheticals that have already been paraded in the street. There is however one concrete example. He mentions the case in Victoria where a Doctor allegedly refused to prescribe contraception or advice to a patient about IVF. It is important to note however that this alleged incident has nothing to do with the drafted Religious Discrimination Bill. This case has arisen under existing laws in Victoria and not because of a Bill that has yet to be even debated before the Parliament.

It is worth noting the kind of language Justice Kirby employs to describe the kind of person who is advocating for the Bill:

“it actively facilitates intolerance and will work to divide rather than unite Australians”

“support those who use religious belief as a weapon against non-believers.”

Is this really the state of mind and heart of religious Australians? We are wanting legal protection for the purpose of using our beliefs as a weapon? There is more…

“This is something obsessive religious proponents demand”.

Of course, any person who supports this Bill is obviously ‘obsessive’ and unreasonable and a fool! For a decisive knock out punch, Justice Kirby concludes by bringing out one of the big words,

“We should be vigilant to preserve it, not erode its legacy by enacting laws to appease an extreme minority.”

Are our mainstream Christian denominations now to be described as ‘extreme’? Are Anglicans, Presbyterians and Baptists, ‘extreme’. Extreme in what and how? For affirming what Christians have believed and practised for 2,000 years? For cherishing ideas that have created the freedoms and societal goods that we enjoy today in this country?  We all know how appalling extremists are, but labelling people in this false way is incredibly slanderous.   I understand, resorting to this kind of rhetorical game can be effective and persuasive, but it does nothing to aid truth-telling and it only further exemplifies the fracturing of civil society. Of course, there are some religious tools in our community; I don’t see anyone denying that. But this narrative being spun by Kirby and others is simply disingenuous.

As I wrote earlier in the week, I’m not saying that the Bill cannot be improved. My preference would be that we live in a society where such legislation isn’t required.  It is important to remember why this Bill is even being considered: it is because of the unreasonable and hardline secularists who will not tolerate Australians who do not fully endorse their narrow way of looking at the world. The same people who cry out for love speech are calling fellow Australians bigots for not supporting their causes, and are going to great lengths to silence these Australian and even remove them from their places of employment.

Wouldn’t it be advantageous and refreshing to see disagreeing Australians discuss these matters with civility and sitting down together without spitting coffee at each other?  I remember one such example. Back in 2017, Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson sat down with a Coopers beer in hand and chatted about their differing position on gay marriage. It was polite, honest, and respectful. Yet within hours, social media was alight with hate, and with photos of people destroying bottles of Coopers and with pubs declaring that they would no longer serve the Aussie beer. That’s the problem, we no longer wish to talk across the table or to show kindness to those who disagree with us. There is only one flavour in town and that is ‘outrage’.

Whether it is Michael Kirby or Luke Beck, the media, and the rest of us (including those who support some kind of religious discrimination bill), we really need to put the straw man out to pasture and rediscover those out-of-fashion virtues, kindness and authentic tolerance. The Religious Discrimination Bill is aimed at going some way to hold together this fraying society, but I do hope that wherever it finally lands, Christians will keep speaking truth in love and to love our neighbours whoever they may be. Yes, sometimes we will fail to do so, and so we should ask for forgiveness. We should hold to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If our society so determines that this is extremism, then so be it. Let us be extreme in loving God and in wanting good for others

 

 

4 thoughts on “The Straw Man is about to burst!

  1. Fairfax is no more, Nine News.

    On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 10:02 am MurrayCampbell.net, wrote:

    > MurrayCampbell posted: “The straw man mock-up of the Religious > Discrimination Bill is getting stuffier with every passing day. It wasn’t > enough for Judith Ireland and Luke Beck to write a couple of fictional > pieces last week for Fairfax. Their collation of hypotheticals have be” >

    Like

  2. Well said, once again Murray. My view, in line with what I previously posted, is that this Religious Discrimination Bill cannot be viewed as other than a concerted political attempt – indulged by “both sides” – to draw attention away from the embarrassing religious discrimination promoted by the Marriage Act itself. The Bill is thus a convenient feint as much for Michael Kirby as for Hon. Mr. Porter.
    The root of this problem is with the Federal Parliament’s own violation of the principle of freedom of religion which this ex post facto legislation is merely stable door closing after horse has bolted. The Marriage Act of December 2017 is the horse and now needs to be captured in order to redress the injustice meted by the Act as it now stands. Injustice to whom? To those who believe that marriage is exclusively a husband-wife bond for “as long as [they] both shall live.” Your identification of “the same people who cry out for love speech are calling fellow Australians bigots for not supporting their causes, and are going to great lengths to silence these Australian and even remove them from their places of employment” is apt. But such dog whistlers (shall we call them) are actually doing so on the basis of the precedent set by the Federal Parliament itself in “removing” those who believe in husband-wife marriage from civil wedding ceremonies.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Moreover, those who argue like Michael Kirby argues, seem to conveniently forget and fail to explain the change in attitude from that put forward by this country’s first “gay rights” advocacy group, CAMP, in 1975-1976 before the Royal Commission on Human Relationships. Peter de Waal put it plainly that homosexual relationships are not marriages. So, what now for those who, in line with Peter de Waal’s ’75-76 view, and the UDHR, do not see marriage as a human right?
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/hindsight/public-intimacies3a-the-royal-commission-on-human-relationships/4646926
    As with the Andrews Government’s furtive inching toward a dogmatic “intersectionality”, as well many of the pompous justifications for “Safe Schools”, we see at work a lack of coherent jurisprudence alongside what is a dogmatic demand that all people in all spheres of public life give way to a peculiar nihilistic anthropological theory, erasing all lines of structural distinctiveness, that accommodates as it increases sexualised confusion about ordinary everyday friendships.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Gregory Storer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s