Free Essay Sample on The Religious Discrimination Bill

The Religious Discrimination Bill, initiated by the coalition government in 2019, has brought many controversies to the table. The Bill has caused many conflicts and continues to divide opinions across Australia. The Religious Discrimination Bill has been reintroduced into the parliament for a third time” The Good and the Bad of the Religious Discrimination Bill: The Law Council’s Verdict," written by the president of the Law Council of Australia, Tass Liveris, is an opinion piece on the Religious Discrimination Bill. Through a logical and unbiased tone, Tass Liveris presents to the law council and Australian society that there is such a requirement for a Religious Discrimination Bill. However, the bill ought to be fixed. He argues that the bill is worthy of support as it covers some weaknesses in the current anti-discrimination laws, despite the fact that it may come into conflict with other rights. Accompanied by an image of rights on an equal scale, Leviris tries to show that all rights are equal and must be treated with fairness. On the other hand, Reverend J H Leber has published a response to the president of the Law Council of Australia, contending that there is no need for such a bill, and that passing it would allow more discrimination. In an empathetic and unbiased tone, Leber seeks to highlight to the law council of Australia and Australian society that human conscience can distinguish between the sense of right and wrong, not a bill proposed by politicians. 

Tass Leviris argues that the Religious Discrimination Bill "fills gaps" in the current federal anti-discrimination laws. As an expert in the law field, he notices weaknesses in the "existing federal anti-discrimination laws" that necessitate their consolidation. In his statement, these weaknesses may include discrimination against "our religion or lack of religion" regarding having access to "goods and services, facilities, education, and social opportunities." In this line, Leviris inclusively justifies his logic of how the bill "fills gaps" in the "existing federal anti-discrimination laws." This is a direct appeal to community values and human rights. This is considered an advantage of the Religious Discrimination Bill. Furthermore, Leviris logically approaches the issue and invites the audience to consider the benefits that the bill brings. Leviris emphasises the bill's objectives with inclusive language, stating that it "refer[s] to the indivisibility and universality of human rights and their equal status in international law." The choice of the words "indivisibility" and "universality" encourages the audience to observe the inseparable connection between religion and human rights across the world. In this way, he also uses analogy to compare religion’s position to human rights of equal status. By comparing religion and human rights, Leviris gives assurance to the audience that both religion and human rights may stand equally. This also shows Leviris’s comprehension of the complexities of the issue. On the contrary, Leber contradicts Leviris's belief that the Religious Discrimination Bill will "allow discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, physical abilities, economic status, or lack of faith in God" if passed. Leber proclaims that "any attack on diversity is an attack on the Creator’s divine expression." Leber attempts to awaken a sense of spirituality in the audience by using an analogy and emotive language in an unbiased tone. In this fashion, he also appeals to individual values, according to which everyone has the right to equality. In his very last statement, Leber invites his audience to unity, saying "we should all be united as one, free of any form of prejudice, discrimination, hate, bigotry, or exclusion."

While Tass Leviris supports the bill to some "extent," he has taken a step back to consider the issue from the opposing perspective. Leviris believes that "other provisions in the bill" may cause "conflicts" between religion and human rights. In a rational approach, Leviris states that "religious belief" may gain higher status in society compared to human rights as "certain statements of belief" would not be considered discriminatory by the bill. In his statement, religious belief may step "over other human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age, and religion itself." In his last words, Leviris appears to compare one’s religion to another’s. Using this comparison, his central point refers to the "unlawful discrimination" of religions against each other, which may eventually turn into huge conflicts. However, he guarantees the audience that "as long as these statements are in good faith, they are okay." Through this, he appeals to logic, taking into consideration the fact that everyone has "the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." Conversely, in his second argument, Leber appeals to mentality and self-reflection where "the conscience, inner, eternal arbiter of good and evil" of individuals must decide to respect the "diversity of God’s creation," not the bill proposed by politicians. Therefore, he cites that "they should denounce the bill in its entirety" as the Religious Discrimination Bill "is a recipe for hate and division." Through the use of emotive language, Leber appeals to anger and hatred towards the idea of the bill as he believes in "equality." Emotively, as Leber refers to "hate," he also refers to "love," saying "love must not be sabotaged by someone’s statement of belief," leaving people "anxious, demonised, and excluded." Thus, he appeals to individuals’ feelings and emotions. This also highlights how he appeals to respect and individual values. "Him (or Her!)!" and "Father (or Mother!)" are wisely chosen words by Leber that appeal to respect for other religions, as different religions may use different pronouns to refer to their God. In that manner, Leber links back to "loving and respecting the diversity of God’s creation."

At its core, despite all the various outcomes, both Leviris and Leber display the advantages and disadvantages of the Religious Discrimination Bill and its impact on society. Although being on opposing sides, both authors use similar strategies to forward their perspectives and specific arguments.