Marcel contributes to freedom of religion debate

Obviously the previous post raises questions about freedom of speech and of religion in Australia, as have some other posts here on issues like "Is Australia a Christian country?"

Marcellous has rightly pointed out that here we tend to forget we are not Americans. He is reflecting on what right-wing newspaper opinionista Miranda Devine had to say in defence of Tom Cruise and his science-fiction inspired "religion".

Recently St Miranda has been complaining that people are picking on Tom Cruise.  “What’s wrong with Scientology?” she asks. Well, that’s a paraphrase.

Sure, he belongs to a religion, Scientology, that seems pretty kooky on face value, but that is his right, as in any country that is supposed to respect freedom of religion.

and

While Scientology certainly appears eccentric, with its talk of extra-terrestrials and “thetans”, so, too, does most New Age claptrap. Many traditional religions have oddball elements, strictly speaking, and among the most bigoted and dogmatic people around are atheists.

I don’t actually see the equivalence between the bigoted and dogmatic nature of some atheists, and the kookiness or otherwise of some religious beliefs. It’s a false comparison.

Nor do I know where this “freedom of religion” thing comes from. Actually, I do know: it’s a US concept. Miranda can’t help that: it comes with the neocon water and she after all was born in the US when her father was working there. As any reasonable neo-con actually ought to know (given their views on human rights) the only freedom of religion in Australia is the freedom from an established religion. The charitable treatment of religion is an indulgence, not a right, albeit that it has also been extended, in Australia, to Scientology…

Keep that in mind.

Marcel is a lawyer.