Reinforcing substantive religious inequality
A critical analysis of submissions to the Review of Freedom of Religion and Belief in Australia Inquiry
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11637369 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jacqueline K Nelson (0000-0001-7848-0604, corresponding author), Alphia Possamai‐inesedy (0000-0003-3612-9781), Kevin M Dunn (0000-0002-9974-1217) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 297-318 |
| Publication date | 2012-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Journal of Social Issues (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0157-6321 • E-ISSN: 1839-4655 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2012.tb00250.x |
| OpenAlex | W1513112718 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 16 |
The parties contributing to the Freedom of Religion and Belief in Australia Inquiry had a strong interest in the role of religion in society. Those making submissions were parochial about the status and importance of their own faith, less positive about religious diversity, more likely to be culturally supremacist, and more likely to independently express anti‐Islamic sentiment than the general population. A large proportion of submissions (40 per cent) included the religio‐centric assertion that Australia is a Christian nation. Alternative voices – that Australia is a multi‐faith country or those that saw Australia as secular – were much less ‘present’ in the submissions. Most submissions argued for the retention of religious exemptions from anti‐discrimination laws and against anti‐religious‐vilification legislation that would protect religious minorities. Christian‐centric voices purposefully undermined movement towards more inclusive social policy and protection of rights. The Christian majority insisted that their position of dominance be affirmed in Australia. The failure of the inquiry to advocate for policy and legislative change to expand religious freedoms (especially to minorities) was a performance of professed ‘state neutrality’ that reproduced substantive inequality. The public submission process was an effective mechanism for reinforcing a privileged relation between the state and Christian organisations, and fails the tests of both fairness and more substantively equality
Faith · Freedom of Religion · Human rights · Islam · Legislation · Legislature · Neutrality · Political science · Politics · Population · Scrutiny · Secularism · Sociology · State (computer science · Law · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Society, and Development · Religious Freedom and Discrimination
Australians' Views on Cultural Diversity, Nation and Migration, 2015-16
Protecting freedom/protecting privilege
The bell was tolling’
No longer a ‘Christian nation’
The shifting Christian right discourse on religious freedom in Australia
Young Adults' Attitudes Towards Multiculturalism in Australia
Constructing the Problem of Religious Freedom
Religious Diversity in Australia
Freedom of Religion in post-secular Australia
Religion And Modernization
Australian Soul
Citizenship and Identity
Social Justice Issues in the Management of Religious Diversity in Australia
Polity and Group Difference
Multicultural Citizenship
Anglo-multiculturalism
Representations of Islam in the politics of mosque development in Sydney
The Inclusion and Exclusion of Minorities in European Countries
Invoking Religion in Australian Politics
Religion and Politics in the Howard Decade
Dog-Whistle' Journalism and Muslim Australians since 2001
Minority Religions, Religious Freedom, and the New Pan-European Political and Judicial Institutions
Regulating Religion
The 'Choirboy' and the 'Mad Monk
Cities of race hatred? The spheres of racism and anti-racism in contemporary Australian cities
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,82 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2023 (9) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |