But my imaginary friend is special…

Yeah… and so is his, and so is hers… kinda awkward that they’re all different imaginary friends isn’t it?

If you haven’t realised by now this one is going to be about religion. Now I’m not against religion at a conceptual level. I fully admit that I have just as little confirmed information about the creation of the universe as the Pope does, that is where my concessions to religion stop though. With this in mind, you won’t be awarded any points for guessing that the undermining of public policy in the name of ‘religious freedom’ really presses my buttons.

So, what am I going to talk about over the next few posts?

Two particular examples: The federal government’s recent, and laudable decision to deny anti-vaxxers a range of government payment; and the recent submissions by the Australian Christian Lobby to the Victorian Government on the issue of gay adoption rights.

To start off I am going to congratulate the Abbot Government… well to be more precise I am going to congratulate Scott Morrison as I am sure he is the primary driver behind this initiative. The anti-vaxxer movement is a blight on modern society and a slap in the face to the thousands of years of medical science we have collectively accumulated as a species. Vaccines work! This isn’t a debate, this is even less of a debate than the existence climate change. Seriously, when Tony Abbot has realised that the science of something is settled it is time to move on.

So why am I having a go at this initiative? Yeah, I’m going to be one of those people who say that it doesn’t go far enough. Look, those people annoy me too, but I like to think that I have a very good reason for my view on this. It comes down to the issues of ‘religious freedom’ and ‘conscientious objection’.

The new scheme put in place by the federal government is primarily designed to remove the loophole wherein parents who considered themselves ‘conscientious objectors’ to vaccinations could choose to not vaccinate their children. Now, the government realised that this was obviously absurd… I mean how can you ‘conscientiously object’ to something which has been irrefutably proven to save lives? It’s tantamount to child abuse.

But hang on a second… there’s a second clause within this loophole which has attracted quite a bit less attention. That is the ‘religious objection’ clause. According to this clause in the scheme, parents who can prove that their religion has forbidden the administering of vaccinations can choose to not vaccinate their children and still receive the government benefits in question.

Now this sets a really dangerous precedent. This scheme basically states that if you have a view based on misinformation and ignorance, which leads to your child being at risk of serious injury or death, you should be denied the privileges of an advanced society. But, if your misinformed and ignorant views are signed off by a religious organisation… well go for it!

I’m sorry, but when did religious endorsement becomes a legitimating factor for child abuse? What’s next? Can fundamentalist Islamists object to their daughters attending school? Can creationists object to public schools teaching kids about the big-bang? Both these views have been endorsed by a religious institution at one point or another… so where do we draw the line?

Yeah, I know these are extreme examples but they are fully possible using the same logic used to justify the religious objection to vaccinations. This isn’t some bullshit “gay marriage will lead to bestiality” slippery slope. We’ve already seen what happens when you take these ‘religious freedom’ clauses to their logical conclusion.

Yes, the government has done something genuinely good in taking a firm stand on the anti-vaxxer movement and I DO congratulate them. But this debate has stirred up another issue which I think this country needs to head off at the pass. You have the absolute right to BELIEVE whatever you want; this does not mean that you have the right to DO whatever you want in the name of that belief.

Stay tuned for part two of ‘The centre VS Religion in policy’ when I have a look at the ACL’s response to the Victorian Government’s request for submissions on the issue of gay adoption rights.