I subscribe to Counter Arguments and I do encourage people to check it out. The arguments are clear and fairly comprehensive and provide great great ground for further discussions. In this video, he tackles the subject od religious freedom, specifically addressing the Kim Davis case and the arguments around civil disobedience. I think it does a great job of breaking the situation down, particularly helping to distinguish the roles of the different branches of US Government in legalising Gay Marriage and the implications for law enforcement.
An area of difficulty I found was in the idea that those advocating for religious liberty are in any way looking for a free for all pass on any behaviours claiming roots in religious belief and that is very well addressed in this article:
I think what this article does is outline the ability to have a balance that allows all cases and rights be properly examined and then dealt with accordingly which, as per my submission below, is something I strongly agree with.
**************************
Further information regarding the current review is available here:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review
The right to freedom of religion and belief is as fundamental as the right to dissent or criticise any form of belief. Both should be equally and adamantly protected.
For the state to create an overriding general mandate on morality despite the complexity of core beliefs and the right to express those beliefs ultimately stifles the opportunity for genuine and open discussion which is essential to furthering human understanding in a pluralistic world. One doesn't wipe out discrimination by forcing people to act in genuine conflict with their conscience and the only real way you can distinguish between the two is through honest conversation which also must involve honest listening.
If a case comes forward and is placed under scrutiny, then the merits of each side's arguments can actually be judged. Once the ability to even argue a side, whichever side it is, is taken away by being made contrary to law, the opportunity to judge actions based on genuine reason and merit disappears. In a democracy, such a thing would be unspeakably wrong.
We must fight discrimination tooth and nail, but in trying to stamp out real discrimination, lumping those who intend to spread real hatred and unjustly discriminate with those who have genuine reason for their beliefs and whose beliefs have no root in hatred, does the population real injustice. In a democracy, we cannot abide by simply gagging a portion of the population.
Our only chance is to protect the freedom of all sides to peacefully and respectfully live and express their beliefs and therefore allow genuine discussion and further encourage real understanding between all.
