|
|
Cardinal criticises grave abuses by ‘human rights industry’
|
Cardinal George Pell has called for the freedom to practise one’s religion and live by one’s beliefs to be recognised as a basic human right which is legally protected, and not seen simply as “an exemption” in equality law.
We have to stop using the word ‘exemptions’ in anti-discrimination laws “because it suggests that religious freedom is a government grant or concession, not a fundamental human right,” said the Australian Cardinal.
He called on Christians to vigorously oppose “the human rights industry” when it uses notions like ‘equality’ to undermine fundamental values like respect for human life and religious freedom.
When this industry “starts to treat religious freedom as a problem, it makes itself an ugly Goliath” which must be slain.
Leftwing, anti-religious extremists are fabricating new rights, “such as those to abortion, anti-discrimination and same-sex marriage,” to push their own secular agenda he said.
They are using these to overthrow genuine rights, such as “the right to life, the recognition of the family based on marriage as the fundamental unit of society; the rights of parents to determine the moral and religious education of their children; and the rights to freedom of religion, belief, and conscience.”
Archbishop of Sydney, the Cardinal gave the keynote address at a recent conference organised by the Australian Christian Lobby. He highlighted, in particular, the growing use of laws and charters to diminish religious freedom.
“Anti-discrimination laws which do not respect fundamental human rights such as freedom of religion and conscience, are unjust laws,” he said. And people “should not be afraid to say so.”
The Cardinal urged all those who favour freedom of speech and religion to oppose a federal Charter of Rights.
He warned, “it will be used, as it is now used in Britain, to threaten and harass those manifesting religion in public life and especially the Christian religion.”
Freedom from sex discrimination, he said, was being devalued by being linked with “ambiguous categories such as ‘sexual orientation’, and fantasies of the zeitgeist such as ‘gender identity’.”
He argued that if acceptance of same-sex marriage became an important principle of government policy, it would lead to a collision with Christian beliefs, with enormous consequences for religious freedom.
Areas affected would include: “marriage preparation and counselling, decisions about medical treatment by next of kin, school enrolments, sex education in secondary schools, the hire of parish and church facilities for events, and arrangements for married couples in emergency housing and retreat and aged care centres.”
He hit out at the increasing number of human rights laws and charters which end up violating and diminishing key human rights rather than protecting them.
“These great matters must be decided politically and we should not let our minority opponents shuffle them off to the courts, much less to Commissions,” he said.
Return to Homepage >>
|
|
|
