CHURCH AND NATION REPORT TO ASSEMBLY, SYDNEY 2010

Meetings: Since the last Assembly, the Committee met, face-to-face on three occasions and by telephone conference on thirteen occasions.
Personnel: Since the last Assembly, the Western Australian Assembly has formed a State Church and Nation Committee and appointed a representative to the Federal Committee, Rev. Ross Fraser.
In addition, your Committee resolved to co-opt Dr Nicholas Aroney, professor of law at the T.C. Beirne School of Law within the University of Queensland, as an advisory member to help it with several technical legal and complex pieces of legislation, most notably, those touching on freedom of conscience, thought and religion. Dr Aroney's contribution to these and other major issues has been of such great value that the Committee will quite likely co-opt him again to assist it in its work.
Submissions Lodged: Due to the election of a new Federal government with a 'reformist' agenda, commencing early in 2008, there have been a number of enquiries commissioned by various branches of the Federal Government and Parliament with moral and spiritual implications for both the church and nation. The Committee has contributed submissions to these enquiries and/or legislative proposals, as listed in Appendix 1.
Co-operative Work with Moderator General: The Committee wishes to record its heartfelt thanks to God for the leadership and co-operation of Robert Benn in promoting the voice of the Church in the public square during his term of office.
The press-releases he issued on the Church's behalf, dealing with issues within the Committee's sphere of responsibility are displayed on the New South Wales Church's website at http://www.pcnsw.org.au/index.php/news-a-information/media-releases
Our thanks are also due to the New South Wales Church's Press Officer, Ms Karen Forman for assistance in preparing and disseminating some of these to the media and to the Rev. Michael Wharton and Pres E-News for being the vehicle for so much useful e-communication of intra-denominational news.
Statements:   Why the continued emphasis on statements from this Committee?
There are at least three compelling reasons.
The philosophical reason: to articulate the denomination's thinking on important social issues so as to be able to interact and co-operate with other Christians and sometimes others of like mind in pursuit of an improved nation. As our regulations show, this is at the heart of our mandate and is to be done in consultation with the State Church & Nation Committees to promote unity of expression.
The Apologetic Reason: to teach the church, but also the nation, the wholesome position our denomination holds on important social issues on which there exists consensus within our denomination.
Whilst we refrain from speaking on every issue, we aim to speak on issues of majority consensus, always seeking to be careful not to offend or alienate our own people by ill-chosen commentary or pronouncements in their name.
The practical reason:  it helps our leaders and informed members to express the church's officially-agreed consensus position in all manner of pastoral/social situations in the public domain with authority, unity and clarity when called upon to do so by the media, politicians, members of the public, etc.
At this Assembly, we submit proposed statements on the responsible use of alcohol and the vigorous promotion of the institution of marriage for the Assembly's adoption and dissemination.
Colloquium: The whole Church owes a great debt to the Victorian Church and Nation Committee for organising and hosting the inaugural Religion in the Public Square colloquium, in Melbourne, in July 2010
By addressing the following topics:

the Victorian Committee has done invaluable service towards lifting the profile of the
confessing church, in general, and our branch of it, in particular.
We propose that the Assembly commend the organisers and encourage that further such colloquia be arranged, whenever possible.
Freedom of Religion: Commissioners will be aware of the significant attention given to the issue of how to promote freedom of religion in recent years. Some see this as a strategy to promote their ideal of freedom from the influence of religion in a secular society and others see it as a vehicle to promote freedom for various minority religions to exercise undue influence in a multicultural society, thereby dethroning the status quo which is affirmed (or abscinded) by the majority.
This Committee understands the phrase freedom of religion to mean a genuine freedom for people of various faiths to practise their faith and contribute to society in a dignified and respectful way, with due recognition being given to Australia's overwhelmingly Christian heritage and consequent right being recognised for Christians, along with others, to fully participate in all aspects of society.
The Committee made submissions to both the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st
Century project being run by the Australian Human Rights Commission with the Commission due to report mid-year 2010 and the National Human Rights Consultation chaired by Fr Frank Brennan to which the Federal Attorney General responded on the 21st April 2010. Links to our submissions to these two enquiries, which we ask the Assembly to note, are found in Appendices 2 and 3.
As part of the preparation for responding to both the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the21st Century project and the Brennan enquiry, a steering committee was set up by Mr Jim Wallace AM of Australian Christian Lobby consisting of a broadly based group of churchmen and lawyers to develop lines of argument in response that could be used by denominational and other bodies in making their individual submissions. Both Professor Nicholas Aroney and the Rev. David Palmer were a part of this steering group. Also associated with this group was Professor Patrick Parkinson of Sydney University Law School who has written a paper, A National Agenda for Religious Freedom. The intention is that following the next Federal election, with the endorsement of denominational church bodies and leaders for this document, the major political parties will be approached and asked to incorporate religious freedom as set out in A National Agenda for Religious Freedom in their party policy statements.
We therefore attach A National Agenda for Religious Freedom as Appendix 4 for the Assembly's endorsement.
In summary, A National Agenda for Religious Freedom argues there are five basic freedoms that must be safeguarded for genuine religious freedom:

At the time of the preparation of this report there has been no indication from the Australian Human Rights Commission as to its conclusions and recommendations regarding the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project
In relation to the Brennan enquiry into the possibility for a national Human Rights Charter, the Attorney General, Senator Robert McClelland announced on the 21st April 2010 that there would be no national Human Rights Charter, but left open the possibility that the matter could be revisited in 2014.
Australian Christian Lobby: The Committee has always advocated for informed, constructive, and vigorous lobbying by Christians commending the cause of Christ in the nation's affairs. To that purpose, it interacts with various ministries.
For the past several years, the cause of Christ in Canberra, especially; and amongst our political leaders, generally; has been greatly strengthened by the establishment of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). Your Committee is honoured to play a part in ACL's advocacy/apologetic work and acknowledges the particular role that Rev. David Palmer and Dr Nicholas Aroney have played on our denomination's part as they have liaised with ACL.
The Committee invites the Assembly to commend ACL on its work.
The Committee is delighted to have ACL's Managing Director, Jim Wallace OAM, to address this Assembly and thanks both him for agreeing to do so and the Business Committee for facilitating this.
Appendix 1     Submissions Lodged 2008-2010

Appendix 2 Submission to the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project
The Committee's submission may be viewed at http://www.canfederal.presbyterian.org.au/GAA%20PCA%20Submission%20Final.pdf.
Appendix 3    Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation
The Committee's submission may be viewed at
http://www.canfederal.presbyterian.org.au/90611%20Human%20Rights%20Consultation%20 Submission1.pdf.

Appendix 4    A National Agenda for Religious Freedom
The National Agenda for which signatures are currently being sought from church leaders immediately follows. On the recommendation of the Church and Nation Committee, the Moderator General, the Rt Rev. Robert Benn signed the document on behalf of the Presbyterian Church of Australia.
A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
People of faith have numerous concerns about threats to religious freedom in Australia, both at state and federal levels, deriving from an attitude of hostility towards religious belief, morals and practice among some in the Australian population. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. It is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international instruments in the clearest and strongest terms.
Religious freedom consists, at a minimum, of the following five basic freedoms:-

These basic liberties have long been recognised by the common law and are inherent in the concept of religious freedom in international law.
Australia should affirm its long-standing common law tradition of religious freedom and give effect to the specific protections contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for religious belief, worship, observance, practice and teaching. To do so is necessary in order to recognize and respect the importance of religion in the lives of so many Australians. It is also critical to having a successful and harmonious multicultural society.
Introduction: Australia is now a multicultural society with people of numerous different faiths, as well as many people who do not hold religious beliefs. While a significant proportion of the population still identify with a religious faith, only a minority of people are actively involved in religious worship on a regular basis.
The changes in the nature of Australian society necessitate a new examination of how the country should fulfil its international obligation to protect religious freedom in the context of a multicultural society. Religious freedom has long been an integral part of Australian life, recognised by the common law. However, freedoms that were once taken for granted in Australia can be taken for granted no longer. There are also issues about potential conflicts between freedom of religion and other valid principles of modern society such as freedom from improper discrimination.
The purpose of this paper is to propose some principles that ought to inform the Government's approach to issues of religious freedom. These principles have long been recognised by the common law and are acknowledged in internationally recognized standards of human rights. The paper suggests how different rights should be integrated in a society that takes seriously the principle of religious freedom. It examines five particular freedoms that are integral to freedom of religion and which ought to be protected in Australia. All religions in Australia would benefit from the protection of religious freedom in this way.
The common law: The common law recognises the freedom of individuals and groups to form and hold religious beliefs and to manifest those beliefs in worship, observance, practice, teaching and dissemination, subject only to the generally applicable constraints of the law. This freedom derives from the fundamental principle of the common law, recognised in cases such as Entick v Carrington (1765), that the government has authority to interfere with a person's property and liberties only to the extent that such interferences are specifically authorised by law. Apart from this, the assumption of the common law is that each person enjoys complete freedom of religion, not just in his or her private beliefs and ritual observances, but in public practices, teaching and dissemination. As Mason ACJ and Brennan J put it in The Church of the New Faith v The Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120 at 130, "freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society" and extends to the freedom of the individual "to believe and act in accordance with his [or her] belief without legal restraint".
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Consistent with this general assumption of the common law, Article 18 of the ICCPR provides:
"1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Whilst referring also to freedom of conscience and thought, the focus of Article 18 is on protecting the human rights of people who hold religious beliefs. This recognises the importance of religious belief to adherents, the close linkage between religion and identity, and the importance of religion in the life of societies. Freedom of religion is one of the very few non-derogable human rights in international law. Article 4(2) of the ICCPR provides that governments may not dispense with it even in a time of national emergency which threatens the very life of the nation. The meaning and operation of Article 18 is further explained in the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 22, and in the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Religious belief and practice: Article 18 goes far beyond freedom of belief and worship. The rights protected by that article also include the right of a person to manifest his or her religion or belief in "observance, practice and teaching". This is because religion does not only involve belief in the supernatural. As the High Court of Australia noted in The Church of the New Faith v The Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120, religion also impacts upon, and makes demands upon, the way we should live in the world.
There are many areas in which the major religions are united when it comes to those codes of conduct. Perhaps the greatest common ground is in relation to marriage and the family. The major monotheistic religions also share similar beliefs about the wrongfulness of sex before or outside marriage, and, for the most part, in relation to homosexual practice.
Religious belief is usually expressed communally; so part of religious freedom is the right and ability to congregate in groups in places such as churches, synagogues, mosques and temples in order to worship, to pray and to learn together. The communal expression of religious faith is protected not only by Article 18 but by Article 27:-
"In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons
belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other
members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion, or to use their own language."
A law which protects religious freedom must therefore protect the rights of religious people to congregate and to organise as a group. Beliefs and other faith-based criteria inevitably define the group by categories of inclusion and exclusion. The right to congregate, to organise as a group and to put group values into practice is not only protected by Article 18 but also by Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 22 (freedom of association).
Restrictions on religious freedom: The test that the ICCPR places on restrictions on religious freedom is a very strict one. It requires that restrictions may only be imposed on outward manifestation of religion or belief and that any such restriction be necessary. Being 'necessary' is something quite different from being merely 'desirable' or 'a good idea'. It ought to be demonstrated (and by real evidence, not mere assertion) that without this restraint on religious freedom, damage would be caused to public safety, order, health, or morals or there would be a violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. No other limitation provision in the ICCPR is qualified with the term 'fundamental'. While those 'rights and freedoms of others' may limit the manifestation of religion, that does not mean that in any conflict between the non-derogable right of religious freedom and the rights of others, that others' rights should be given precedence. Those rights may themselves be limited by the requirement to protect religious freedom. Limitations are a two-way street.
Article 18 of the ICCPR therefore requires the Federal Government to ensure that there is an appropriately generous zone of protection associated with religious belief, worship, observance, practice and teaching, even though it is recognised that there is no hierarchy in the importance of rights. This recognizes the very important part that religious belief should be allowed to play in the lives of a large number of Australians, and the nature of freedom of religion as one of the most fundamental human rights.
Laws that have the intention or effect of restricting religious freedom must not only have that legitimate aim but should also be carefully drafted so as to go no further than 'necessary' to achieve the protective purpose, and should adopt the least restrictive means for achieving that purpose. Also, accommodation should be made in generally applicable laws (such as those concerning discrimination) to provide support to the constituent rights and freedoms of Article 18.
Five fundamental freedoms: Freedom of religion and conscience, as for a long time recognised by the common law and upheld in the ICCPR and other international instruments, consists, at a minimum, of the following five basic freedoms. All of these freedoms (and more could be included) have been respected in Australia until recently, but they are under challenge from an extreme and dogmatic secularism which demonstrates little respect for religious faith and which sometimes actively opposes it. These freedoms are:-

Freedom to manifest a religion through religious observance and practice Article 18 guarantees the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of a person's choice and to manifest that religion. Manifesting a religion means more than practising it in private. Even in public it goes far beyond meeting for worship. For some faiths, it also involves forms of dress or symbols that are significant to an adherent for religious reasons. Manifesting a religion may also involve observing certain days as holy, when no work should be done. For the Orthodox Jew or the Seventh-day Adventist, Saturday is a special day of that kind. In other faiths, other days are special.
Respecting freedom of religion means accommodating these faith-based observances, as far as possible. That may not be easy to do in relation to school uniforms, workplace uniforms or business attire; but usually, reasonable accommodations can be found with little effort, just as employers and others are often required to accommodate working mothers or people with disabilities. Similar accommodations can and should be made, for example, in terms of rostering, for those who have religious objections to working on certain days.
Freedom to appoint people of faith to organizations run by faith communities Religious freedom includes the right to form religious organisations and to operate these according to religious values. The right to do so is protected by Article 18. Many such organisations already exist. Faith communities run schools, hospitals and welfare organisations, as well as places of worship. However, the operation of anti-discrimination laws in some jurisdictions may interfere with that freedom. Religious communities do not need general exemption from anti-discrimination laws. They do, however, need the freedom of positive selection - that is, the right to advertise for and select staff (whether professional staff or otherwise) who will honour the beliefs, values and codes of conduct of the faith-based community. They also need to be able to make adherence to certain beliefs and codes of conduct a condition for continuing employment. This is consistent with the ICCPR's concept of discrimination - that not every differentiation of treatment constitutes discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective, and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the ICCPR.
The right of positive selection is an issue for many faith-based organisations. It should not be misunderstood or misconstrued as a 'right to discriminate'. For example, the right of positive selection of Christian teachers to Christian schools or Muslim teachers to Muslim schools is a right to choose people with a particular characteristic when that characteristic is important to the purpose of the school and is thus, from the school's point of view, a genuine occupational requirement. Characteristics that may be inherent requirements for positions in faith-based organisations include adherence to a code of conduct expected of those who profess the faith as it is understood by the organisation that runs that school.
Faith-based schools provide a particularly clear example of the need to be able to select staff on the basis of adherence to that faith. Such schools have long been a part of religious expression. Indeed, across the western world, many of the oldest and most esteemed schools and universities have had a religious foundation. Many private schools in Australia continue to emphasise the importance of that religious foundation as part of the raison d'etre of the school.
In Australia, there are not only schools established on the basis of the Christian faith but also Jewish and Moslem schools and schools associated with other faiths. Article 18(4) of the ICCPR specifically protects the right of parents "to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions." In similar vein, Article 5(2) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief (1981) provides that: "Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents". Accepting the freedom to teach the tenets of the faith through educational institutions run by faith-based communities is one way of giving effect to Article 18(4). It is a surprising feature of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) that neither gives any acknowledgment to Article 18(4).
The freedom recognised by Article 18(4) goes beyond religious education. It extends to moral education. This involves more than just instruction in classes on religious or social studies. The moral example of all of the adults with whom a child interacts is an essential aspect, if not the living core, of the moral education of children. This is why it is important to many parents that in religious schools, staff should adhere to the moral values of the faith and not just offer a particular form of religious studies.
Faith-based schools vary in the extent to which they give importance to their religious foundations. Some of them do not insist upon adherence to the religious faith of the school as a condition for a teaching appointment. However, there are other schools which have been established to provide an explicitly religious environment for children and young people. Central to the notion of such a faith-based school is that there is much more to a religious education than merely having lessons on the beliefs and doctrines of the faith - that is available in public schools as well. The faith-based school is a religious community and the faith provides a context and a focal point for the children's education, including their moral education. In a religious school, through the teaching and example of staff members who adhere to the religion, the codes of conduct that follow from the religious beliefs are taught and practised. The pastoral care provided by the school is also an expression of the faith and moral values of the staff.
Similar issues arise for many faith-based charitable and humanitarian organizations, including hospitals and social welfare organizations. Many of these organizations are not only faith-based, but faith-motivated. Around the world, they do an enormous amount in practical terms to promote the human rights, dignity and well-being of the world's poor and disadvantaged. Their staff members dedicate their lives to the practical advancement of the poor and needy. Destroying the faith-based character of these organizations so that they no longer have a reason for existence may well diminish the human rights of those they serve.
For these reasons, all religious organizations, or organizations that have a faith-based mission or purpose, should retain the right of positive selection in the employment of staff and the right to make adherence to the beliefs, values and codes of conduct of the faith-based community a condition for continuing employment.
Freedom to teach and uphold moral standards within faith communities
In the great monotheistic religions at least, believers are not only instructed in how to worship but also in moral and ethical norms. These moral standards have long been the basis for shared community values in Australia; but in recent decades, there has been a growing divergence between prevailing standards and the moral teaching of most religions. This is particularly so in the areas of abortion, euthanasia, human sexuality and family life.
There is a great focus in western countries at the moment on issues about homosexual practice. There are differences between religious groups on this issue. Promoting human rights involves, for example, not only advancing the rights of people of homosexual orientation (especially to be free from discrimination), but also respecting the rights of those who adopt moral positions on sexual practices (both homosexual and heterosexual), based on the teachings of their faith. While the issue of homosexual practice has been in the forefront of public consciousness in recent years, it should not be forgotten that people of faith teach a disciplined sexual ethic in relation to heterosexual behaviour as well.
There is a need to respect the different rights and positions taken on all sides of the issue on human sexuality. There is room for more than one set of moral values in the Australian community. Being a tolerant society means being tolerant of different moral values and beliefs about right and wrong. That is inherent also in what it means to be a multicultural society in which people can agree to differ on moral and social issues.
Whatever the values in the broader community, religious freedom requires that people of faith be able to uphold their values within their own faith communities, including religious schools, without this constituting unlawful discrimination. Respecting the right of faith-based organisations to adhere to their moral codes within communities that have been established specifically with a religious motivation and purpose, while requiring a different moral code to apply in relation to the mainstream of trade, commerce and the provision of goods and services, represents an appropriate balance between the different rights and interests in stake when moral codes and beliefs conflict. It also shows appropriate respect for the autonomy of religious organisations - an autonomy that has long been taken for granted as inherent in the very nature of religious freedom, all over the western world.
One application of the right to uphold moral standards within faith-based communities is that it has to be within the power of the leadership of such communities to place boundaries around acceptance of people to share in the membership and privileges of that religious group. For example, a Church needs the freedom to refuse to baptise a person, or the infant child of someone, who does not adhere to the teachings of the faith, since baptism is a marker of acceptance into membership of the Church. Similarly, a Church needs to be able to refuse communion to someone who does not accept the teachings of the Church concerned. There are no doubt similar parallels in other faiths where religious leaders need to say who is, and is not, entitled to share in the membership and privileges of the religious community.
Freedom of conscience to discriminate between right and wrong
Freedom of conscience, in distinguishing between right and wrong according to religiously based moral codes, is also critical to freedom of religion. It goes to the heart of the freedom to choose in favour of a particular belief system and be free from coercion in such matters. There are not many issues on which freedom of conscience is essential, but there are a few, and a society which respects human rights must honour and protect the freedom of conscience of dissenters from the mainstream on moral and ethical issues. Most civilized nations have, for example, accommodated conscientious objection to military service.
One application of this is that governments should not legislate to coerce people to violate their conscience by threat of punishment. A person should not be compelled to provide a service, to facilitate access to it, or to perform other work that reasonably violates his or her conscience, or is inconsistent with his or her religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience extends to religious organizations, including those receiving government funding. This means that generally such organisations ought to be able to refuse to provide a service on the basis of conscience, unless the service is not reasonably available through other providers for whom there are no inhibitions of conscience. If religious organisations were to be unreasonably exposed to legal action for exercising their freedom of conscience, this would increase the likelihood that such organisations, which are major providers of social services in Australia, would withdraw from the provision of certain social services.
Freedom to teach and propagate religion
Freedom to teach is guaranteed by Article 18 of the ICCPR. Accommodating religious schools established by faith-based communities and allowing scripture classes in state schools are ways in which governments give positive support to this right in relation to children.
Freedom to teach in faith-based schools requires a degree of freedom in relation to curriculum. As Wilson and Deane JJ said in The Church of the New Faith v The Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120 at 174, one of the indicia of religion is that "the ideas relate to man's nature and place in the universe and his relation to things supernatural". Faith-based schools should not be constrained from teaching children about these issues as long as they also teach all that is required by the State or Territory curriculum.
The right to manifest one's "religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching" extends beyond the teaching of children. It includes the freedom to make truth claims in the free market of ideas. Because many religions of the world make claims to know and teach absolute truth about man's nature and place in the universe, believing in the truth of one's religion necessarily means that on some matters, one believes others to be mistaken to the extent that their beliefs are inconsistent. There are differences of view within religions and between them. While different religions have much in common, and much that unites them, teaching about the faith may involve pointing out areas of difference with other groups or religions and declaring them to be wrong in relation to those matters.
That does not mean at all that religions are intolerant. One can say that another is mistaken while defending to the utmost his or her right to believe, practise and profess those beliefs. One can also respect the integrity of those who hold to beliefs with which one disagrees. Disagreement, even vigorous debate, is a normal part of life in a free society and is one of the markers of its vitality and capacity for growth and change. People disagree about politics, sport, the arts, the economy, the environment and a myriad of other things. Sometimes people are offended by the views of others. Mere disagreement is not of itself a problem for a society, and disagreement on religious matters is no exception to this. Disagreements only become a problem for a community when they threaten public safety or order. This is a very rare circumstance in Australia, and laws should not inhibit religious freedom because of the merest possibility that there could be some risk to public safety or order from a person's vigorous reactions to the expression of an opposing viewpoint. Restrictions on religious freedom have to be 'necessary', according to the ICCPR. The liberty to make rival truth claims in the free market of ideas is what makes for a free society.
Laws that prohibit vilification or incitement to hatred can justifiably be imposed in tightly defined circumstances; however, they should be very carefully drafted to ensure that they do not have a chilling effect on freedom of speech in religious or moral matters even where the exercise of that freedom causes offence to others who have conflicting beliefs or moral values. Anti-vilification laws should not go beyond Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and should at the very least require an advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence before speech is regarded as unlawful, consistent with the ICCPR. Further, it should not be possible to litigate such claims privately (since this only fuels intolerance); such prohibitions, if enacted, should take the form of criminal public order offences requiring proof of intent to incite, possibly requiring the Attorney-General's consent for prosecution. Freedom of speech of people of faith should not be singled out for special restriction by legislatures.
Freedom of religion involves freedom to seek to persuade others about religious truth. Religious expression, for many faiths, involves communicating about the faith both to fellow believers and to those who do not already share that faith. Religious conviction is not fixed and immutable. Many people who grow up without an active faith come to a strong religious conviction in their adult years. Others who grow up with a strong faith lose it. Others still convert to a religion in which they have not been brought up at all. Freedom of speech on religious matters ought to be protected to a very high degree. This is required by Article 18 of the ICCPR as well as by Article 19 (freedom of expression).
Conclusion: The five freedoms outlined in this document are freedoms that Australians have long taken for granted. They are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society that acknowledges the importance of diversity, and respects the right of people to hold to their particular beliefs and moral standards. They are fundamental freedoms.
While there is a need to respect the rights of others who hold different beliefs, or no belief, there is a compelling case for recognising the rights of different groups and communities to organise themselves by reference to their particular beliefs and values, and to educate their children accordingly. This is an aspect not only of freedom of religion but also of freedom of association. Respect for these freedoms is absolutely essential to a successful and harmonious multicultural society.
The Commonwealth Government has never had a national policy on religious freedom before, perhaps because it has never needed one. However, given the recent tensions on these issues in different parts of Australia there is now a need for national leadership in order to prevent perceived threats to religious freedom causing unnecessary anxiety among law-abiding citizens. Failure to act now could lead to significant disharmony and discontent with governments,
damaging the social fabric of the nation.
A formal statement of policy has the benefit of acting as a guide to government departments and can be used as one benchmark against which to evaluate the benefits and detriments associated with particular legislation or governmental initiatives. A model for this was the way in which the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, promulgated in 1989, guided federal Government policy in the Hawke-Keating governments.
There are various practical ways in which a national agenda on religious freedom could be implemented. At both Commonwealth and State levels, it could, for example, be implemented through specific legislation such as clarifying the effect of employment laws in relation to appointment of staff to faith-based organisations. It could also inform conditions for government funding of faith-based organisations in circumstances where the organisation is not being funded to deliver a service on behalf of the government exclusively.
The ICCPR requires that religion should, in some respects at least, be given a privileged and protected status in the law. This is consistent with the long-standing freedoms that have been taken for granted as part of the law in Australia. Australian law should give effect to the specific protections contained in the ICCPR for religious belief, worship, observance, practice and teaching. That involves giving full recognition to Article 18, supported by other ICCPR obligations such as Article 2(1) and Article 27. To do so is to recognize and respect the importance of religion in the lives of many Australians.
.
Prof. Patrick Parkinson AM, Professor of Law, University of Sydney, 2010

S.A. SLUCKI, Convener.

General Assembly of Australia
Sydney 2010 Resolutions

That the Assembly:

1. Thank the  immediate  past Moderator-General,  the Very  Rev.  Robert Benn,  for his championing of the issues of the Church and Nation Committee during his term of office, as evidenced by his issuing of statements, media releases as well as general support to the
Committee.
2. Thank Ms Karen Forman, NSW Media and Communications Manager, for her help in preparing, disseminating and publicizing the work of the Committee via statements, media releases and letters in consultation with the Moderator-General.
3. Thank the Rev. Michael Wharton both for technically maintaining the Committee's website and publicising its work via Pres E-News.
4. Receive and adopt the statement on the responsible use of alcohol which reads:-

a. Despite its abuse by many, the Assembly affirms alcohol as God's Gift when used in
moderation (1 Tim. 4:4, 5:23, John 2:1-11).
b. Respect the position of total abstinence, taken by many Christians, on theological, ethical, practical and health grounds and does not wish to offend their consciences by this declaration in accordance with the principles of Romans 14.
c. Warn, with all seriousness, of the perils of drunkenness for both the body (Prov. 23:20-35) and the soul (1 Tim. 6:10).
d. Urge those addicted to alcohol to seek the help of organizations that specialise in the treatment of such addictions, recognizing that Christ's Power is able to break any sinful pattern through his Spirit.
e. Urge Sessions, Deacons Courts, Committees and Boards of Management to make their facilities available to such organizations that specialise in the treatment of such addictions.
f. Urge Christians to develop a definite attitude to alcohol by,

i. educating themselves and their families on the effects of alcohol and the consequences of alcohol abuse;
ii. noting that self-control is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5.22-23);
iii. adopting either temperance or total abstinence in their personal and family intake of alcohol;
iv. being constantly aware of how their attitude to alcohol affects their witness to others.

g. Urge Christians, privately and in public, to be models of responsibility and sobriety where they choose to be consumers of alcoholic beverages (Titus 2.11-14).
h. Deplore the fact that alcohol is being consistently abused within the community with devastating results such as death and injury on the roads and in the workplace, addiction, violence, domestic disruption and misery, poverty, problems in pregnancy and damage to personal health.
i. Urge concerted action by state and federal governments, in consultative partnership with insurance companies, aimed at curbing the abuse of alcohol in the community by:

i. restricting advertising of alcoholic beverages in the media;
ii. facilitating sources of sports sponsorship and associated advertising funding, alternative to marketers of alcoholic beverages at sporting events;
iii. placing clear health warnings on alcoholic beverages;
iv. imposing equitable taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages that adequately
cover the financial cost to the community of alcohol abuse;
v. applying taxation proportionately higher according to the percentage of alcohol content of the beverage;
vi. regulating tightly the institutions that sell alcoholic beverages, including the hours in which they operate;
vii. encouraging or offering insurance policies with conditions that promote abstention or temperance in the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

5. Instruct the Committee to:-

a. upload the statement on the responsible use of alcohol onto its website; and
b. forward the statement to the church via Pres E-News.
6. Receive and adopt the proposed statement on marriage which reads:-
That the Assembly:

a. Declare that marriage is a divine creation ordinance relevant for all mankind (Gen
2:23-24).
b. Declare that marriage, rightly defined, is a public commitment between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
c. Affirm its understanding that the purposes of marriage are to promote lifelong love and companionship between the spouses, to provide the most favourable and stable environment in which to conceive, give birth to and nurture children and to promote the health and stability of society.
d. Reaffirm its long-held opposition to the redefining of marriage so as to include partners of the same sex.
e. Encourage teaching and ruling elders and other pastoral leaders to teach the distinctive, Christian, covenantal view in preparing couples for marriage.
f. Call on all involved in de facto heterosexual, domestic relationships to solemnise those commitments by means of marriage (Hebrews 13:4) and appeals to all pastoral leaders to persist in calling on them to do so.
g. Recognise the value to both the church and the world of the celibate, single adult life (1 Corinthians 7).
h. Commend chapter 5 of General Assembly of Australia's Constitution, Procedure and Practice 2006 Edition, "Determinations on Marriage and Divorce", to the consideration and study of all ministers, elders, pastoral leaders and members of the church. (http://www.presbyterian.org.au/PDF/GAACode%20Book2006.pdf)
i. Urge church members to show understanding and compassion for people whose lives have been affected by marriage and/or relationship breakdown, including divorce.
j. Commend the Federal Parliament on its continued affirmation of the legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

7. Write to the Prime Minister and Federal Leader of the Opposition asking them to reaffirm the commitment of their respective parties to the definition of marriage as defined in 6(b).
8. Instruct the Committee to:
a. upload the statement on marriage to its website; and
b. forward the statement to the church via Pres E-News.

9. Commend the Victorian Church and Nation Committee for conceiving, organising and hosting the inaugural colloquium and encourages the arranging of further such colloquia.
10. Note the Committee's submission to the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project and the National Human Rights Consultation.
11. Endorse the paper A National Agenda for Religious Freedom prepared by Professor Patrick Parkinson of the Sydney University Law School and strongly urges all political parties to commit themselves to guaranteeing the basic five freedoms noted in that paper.
12. Commend the work of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) as it seeks to firmly, faithfully and constructively engage with our nation's political and other leaders: commending Christian values in the public square.
13. In relation to the National Curriculum,:

a. Views the development of a national curriculum for schools as a difficult and complex undertaking and reserves its right to make submissions to the process through its Church and Nation Committee.
b. Considers that curriculum be only one of the components of education and sound teaching,  other elements including social  interaction and development,  critical thinking and recreational and aesthetic development.
c. Instructs the Church and Nation Committee to monitor the development of the national curriculum and to report to the 2013 General Assembly.
d. education authorities relating to the importance of recognising Australia's Christian heritage and the religious and moral components within the proposed national curriculum.

14. In relation to the Freedom from Slavery Day, commends the participation of congregations in the Freedom From Slavery national day of prayer on March 13, 2011 which is part of the NOT-FOR-SALE CAMPAIGN.
15. In relation to the Canberra Declaration, invites members of the Church to give consideration to individually signing the Canberra Declaration:

The Canberra Declaration
The Preamble to the Australian Constitution contains the words, "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God". As Australian citizens we continue to declare that we too put our trust in Almighty God.
For centuries, to speak of Western civilisation was to speak of Christian civilisation. The two were in many ways synonymous. The values that we have cherished and sought to strengthen are in large measure founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. The many freedoms, advantages, opportunities, values and liberties which characterise the West owe much to the growth of Christianity with its inherent belief in the dignity of the human person as created in the image of God and the code of behaviour that flows from this belief.
The Canberra Declaration follows on from the 2009 Manhattan Declaration and the 2010 Westminster Declaration. It declares that when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public arena as well, society is richer and healthier.
We wish to emphasise three areas that demand particular attention in our contemporary Australian society, namely religious freedom, marriage and the family, and the sanctity of human life. Were we to undermine any one of these values, the social fabric of our nation would be seriously weakened, to our personal and collective detriment.
Religious Freedom
Religious freedom includes freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. The importance of these freedoms is shown in countries where they are threatened or absent. Police states and totalitarian nations inevitably begin with the curtailment of basic liberties, including religious freedom and the right to speak one's mind and conscience. This includes the right to change one's religious beliefs.
We affirm the basic necessity of freedom of conscience, having the liberty to speak publicly about one's faith and beliefs, and having the right to practise the religion of one's choice. If these freedoms are removed - even in the name of supposed benefits - the prized values of democracy and liberty are seriously undermined.
In Australia today these freedoms are being restricted by laws which, although appearing positive on first reading, have the potential to lead to unintended and unacceptable consequences. These laws include anti-discrimination legislation, hate crime laws and legislation on religious and sexual vilification - each of which may be interpreted in a way that effectively works as a barrier to religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Thus the signers of this declaration affirm the fundamental right of Australians to religious freedom and freedom of speech, and we oppose legislation which denies such freedoms. We likewise oppose laws subjugating our nation to foreign powers and instrumentalities which restrict these freedoms.
Marriage and Family
Another vital package of values and social benefits is the long-standing institution of the natural family resulting from marriage between a man and a woman - as affirmed by the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act: "...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".
No other social institution has done so much good for people and for nations, yet marriage is being undermined, to the detriment of children, individuals, and society itself.
Lifelong marriage between a man and a woman guarantees children their biological birthright to a mother and a father and has a proven track record of providing them with protection, education, welfare, support and nurture. No other arrangement has improved upon the benefits of marriage.
In the face of competing alternatives and moves to redefine marriage, we affirm the importance and social utility of marriage between a man and a woman and the families formed thereby.
Human Life
The third important set of values revolves around the sanctity of human life which is being undermined in much of the Western world, through abortion, euthanasia, and some of the new reproductive technologies.
We believe that all human life, being made in the image of God, has intrinsic and equal value from conception to life's natural end.
The very heart of a humane and civilised society is based on the way it treats its most vulnerable and innocent members including the unborn and the disabled. We therefore insist on the right of all persons, including those who are vulnerable or dependent, to protection from conception to natural death. We will support, protect, and be advocates for such people, since to do anything less is to weaken our humanity and despise our personhood.
We will not comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that involves the intentional taking of innocent human life.
Conclusion
Religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sacredness of human life have provided the foundations enabling Western democratic societies to flourish. We erode these foundations at our peril.
The faith which is at the heart of many of the values and strengths underpinning the Australian nation now compels us to speak up in their defence.
For the future of this nation, and for our children's future, calls upon all like-minded citizens to support and sign this declaration.