Religious freedom legislation is on the right track

Attorney-General Christian Porter, in delivering an overview of the proposed religious freedom legislation, has struck a sensible and very reasonable balance that caters for all (“Churches revolt on freedom bill”, 30/8).

We have dozens of religious faiths being practised in this country, some with significant differences to others, when it comes to fundamental beliefs and customs. It is both impractical and unwise to try and accommodate all of these in full. We should also remember we have thousands who are “faithless” — they too need to be accommodated in any legislation.

Unfortunately, some religions practise medieval traditions that are not necessarily compatible with today’s social standards. Law-makers must be conscious of this and avoid providing excuses for these practices to be protected in a manner that advantages some and disadvantages others. Keep going, Mr Porter, you are on the right track.

John George, Terrigal, NSW

Speaking as a practising Catholic, I find it difficult to understand how the right to religious freedom even requires legislation.

That is a sad reflection on the very society that has given us our religion and laws in the first place.

Also, the law is unable to capture or adequately reflect the sanctity of life and religious faith. These are not up for negotiation. Our laws have come from our faith and they don’t need to protect it.

If you are protecting the right to religious freedom for all religions, what happens with those who believe violent jihad is the only religion? This legislation is fraught with anxiety and is, in fact, not necessary. Australia is a fair, inclusive and faith-based country and we are making it a sham.

Mary Jardine Clarke, Spearwood, WA

In the midst of the debate about freedom of religion, it would be useful if parliament could give us freedom from religion.

Why must people in their old age be condemned by the religious views of members of parliament to spend years in those inhumane prisons known as aged-care facilities?

Why is it laudable for Australians to go to other countries to kill people whom our government doesn’t like but be denied access to drugs that will allow people a dignified exit?

Why do the religious convictions of those in parliamentary try to usurp control of the bodies of women who do not wish to become mothers?

By all means, let us protect the rights of the religious right to not choose abortions or euthanasia for themselves but, equally, let us protect the rights of the majority to make their own choices with respect to their own bodies.

Art Raiche, Killara, NSW

Greg Sheridan’s defence of the draft bill protecting religious freedom (“Common sense means drawing line in middle”, 30/8) is a classic example of a line drawn in the middle between right and wrong.

The government, in its desperate attempt not to offend anyone, has thrown religion under a bus. Had it approached the problem with eyes open rather than mind closed, it would have seen that what is being attacked is free speech.

Speech is the fundamental natural condition of every human being and to speak openly about all matters (subject to the only constraint, that it be reasonable and not advocate personal violence) is the natural right of every human being.

If the Constitution were to protect free speech, the demand for freedom of religion would be solved.

David Long, St Lucia, Qld

My greatest concern about Christian Porter’s draft religious discrimination bill is that, like other anti-discrimination laws, it might lead to more injustice rather than less. Besides, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s flawed record on upholding freedom of speech doesn’t inspire confidence in its ability to judge issues on religious freedom — where freedom of speech and freedom of association are an integral part.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

Granting some people and some organisations immunity from anti-discrimination laws just because they hold up a religion card sets a dangerous precedent.

John Miller, Stirling, ACT