The Peebs.Net Community Forums

The Australian Human Rights Commission has been accepting submissions from the Australian public on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century for a number of months. There have been over 2,000 submissions covering every conceivable point of view.

All major religions appear represented in the list published on the Australian Human Rights Commission website - http://hreoc.gov.au/frb/frb_submissions.html - but there does indeed seem to be a notable exception:

Where Oh Where are the Exclusive Brethren? We looked high and low using all their various camouflaged titles (including of course Jackson Wells). Surely it is important for the Exclusive Brethren to maintain their publicly-subsidized schools and meeting rooms?

Flying under the radar is a term often applied to the Exclusive Brethren, even by themselves, and it is therefore not surprising that at 1,057 in the list there is a 5-page submission by 'Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart' - Bingo!

The submission follows - there are a number of typos in the document which we reproduce faithfully. This is one recent document which we do not believe shows the hallmarks of Jackson Wells, the Exclusive Brethren's spin-doctors - the tangled logic and bumbling attempts at self-justification are simply too 'Exclusive Brethren'.

Highlights:

-- "Christianity must dominate" (the closest the EB have come to evangelism in decades)
-- We must be allowed to build our 'churches'
-- The Daniel Hales Definition of a conscience
-- Freedom of Religion = Mandatory Planning Approval for "our churches and schools"
-- "If you don't allow Separation, Australian society will be destroyed" (Is that a threat Danny?)
-- It's becoming "more difficult to obtain planning permission"
-- "Committed Christians" cannot include "it" ... we need to be able to fire the perverts. (This is known as 'Gay Bashing')
-- Protect Our Scarves and laundered open-necked white shirts
-- Let us build our schools
-- The Internet is really bad, particularly when people say nasty things about us
-- The Media is really bad, particularly when people say nasty things about us
-- Let us build stuff whenever we want to

_________________________________________________

Submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission
on
Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century
by
Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart

Australia and Christianity

Christianity is the revelation of God Himself: and God is love; and “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Holy Bible, the Gospel according to St. John, chapter 3, verse 16).

Christianity has undoubtedly provided a solid foundation for the historical development of Australian Society.

The Australian Human Rights Commission would therefore do well to ensure that the Christian voice, the Christian way and Christian practice are not marginalised. There is a danger that they will be.

The downgrading of Christian principles in the community is of major concern.

Despite the emergence of unsatisfactory practices in Australian society, there is nevetheless a generally satisfactory freedom of religious and cultural practice within the normative social and legal framework.

Religious communities contribute to the social wealth of the Australian nation; but the State has the responsibility of curbing the activities of religious extremists when they threaten the safety or wellbeing of others.

Religious toleration is essential, but the emergence of a multifaith Australia will lead to problems unless the voice of Christianity is dominant and decisive.

Some faith communities represent a threat to the long term cohesion of the Australian nation and a physical threat to National Security.

The State is to control morality and violence, as is endorsed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, but not religion. The practice of religion, provided it does not violate public morals or public order, should not be regulated by the State. A regulation of a practice denies the freedom of belief.

Equality

It is necessary that equality before the law be maintained for all citizens, irrrespective of religious belief and practice.

This equality before the law should also apply to government grants and assistance. lt has in the past, but is in danger of somewhat discontinuing.

Equality is a human right to be applied in all instances of religious practice.

Freedom of religious practice

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines two principles: 1) the individual’s right to freedom of religion, and 2) the individual’s right to be free from discrimination and/ or intolerance.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

and also provides:

5. Advocacy of religious hatred which amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited by law (article 20).

6. Everyone is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination on the ground of religion among other grounds (article 26) and

7. Minority groups are entitled to profess and practise their own religion (article 27).

Freedom to express and practaice a faith system is generally well protected in Australian society. But there is a problem.

lf a person is compelled by law, not to discriminate in conduct against another person or their beliefs, and in order to to this that person has to compromise his own dearly conscientiously held belief and conduct to such an extent that he in effect denies his own personal basic beliefs and practices then that person is being denied ( by law) the very freedom which the Declaration proposes.

Therefore it is essential to include a clause similar to one which was inserted in the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 1995.

“Nothing in (this Act) applies to discrimination by a person against another person if the discrimination is necessary to comply with that person’s genuine religious beliefs or principles”.

In addition, the government should accommodate the needs of faith groups in addressing issues such as religion and education, faith schools, the building of places of worship, religious holy days, religious symbols and religious dress practices by allowing full freedom of religious expression provided it is not immoral or violent.

The Universal Declaration is an admirable social thesis which should colour the legislative thought of every civilised nation in the area of Human Rights; but we submit that any specific Legislation would not fulfil the stated aims of the Declaration.

Neither strengthening Section 116 of the Constitution, or legislating a national Charter of Rights, would securely add to the present freedoms of religion and belief, because the High Court would interpret the clauses in a way it judged to be right, irrespective of what many people would perceive to be a Parliament’s stated intention. This helps neither the freedom of religion nor the Australian ethos.

Both religious radicalism and political extremism are essentially violent and there is a danger of them gathering momentum. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous for government to start controlling religious practice: it should just continue to control morals and violence.

The main areas of concern regarding the freedom to practice our religion are:

. the maintenance of provision for conscience in all laws,
. preaching the Christian gospel (see first paragraph of this submission)
. local Government approval for building churches and schools.

Conscience

A genuine conscience is characterised by:

. A clear understanding and explanation of the moral principles believed;
. A durable or tenacious conviction over a period of time;
. A compelling force or a moral duty which is held in some depth;
. A readiness to suffer disadvantages in maintaining the belief.

Provision for genuine conscience is needed to be maintained in all laws, otherwise you do not have freedom of religion.

The maintenance of provision for conscience as to joint membership of Juries has been generally recognised by governments, but is now under threat in NSW.

There is currently not adequate protection of the conscientious right to discriminate in particular contexts.

Separation

Christianity is inherently based upon the principle of separation, as are most established religions. The Apostle St. Paul, who after Christ Himself was the leading expositor of Christianity, taught “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (Second Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 19).

It is critical to consider that most conservative Christian groups ask that their members be excused from inclusion in anything that they consider would violate their principles or conscience, and this situation does not threaten the continuance of Australian society.

However certain intolerant non-Christian religious elements insist on society changing to suit them rather than seeking exemptions. Allowance or provision for their approach will result in the destruction of the Australian society with its tolerance and mutual cooperation we have today.

Preaching

Government regulation of preaching the Christian gospel in the street should not include prohibition, for that would deny the practice of religion. Sensible conditions on the activity, for example, no use of electric amplification, to provide for public order would be consistent with the principle of freedom of religion.

Building Churches

Since 1998, when the “Article l8” report by HREOC was issued, it has become more difficult to obtain permission to build Christian churches.

Local Government in approving places of public worship generally imposes conditions. Sometimes these conditions deny freedom of religion by seeking to limit the times of services. Holy Communion celebrated at 6am on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) has Iong been a deeply held religious conviction by various Christians. Some Councils are seeking to prohibit this religious practice.

Religious dress

Manner of dress and deportment should not be discriminated against or regulated unless they are a clear and obvious threat to security or social order.

Sexuality

Diverse sexuality is contrary to the Holy Bible and therefore committed Christians cannot include it, but seek to help persons to repent and cease non-Biblical practices.

In the context of freedom of religion, a member of a religious group may well have to exclude a person from employment because of their sexuality, depending on the case. The law would have to allow for this if religious freedom is to be upheld.

Technologies

There are religious and moral implications in the development of the internet.

The new technologies have already been used by anti-Christian, and we could say anti-human, groups to spread their influence.

There should be no legal requirement to use the internet for purposes that would be contrary to a genuine conscientiously held belief.

The Media

The media has a negative impact on the balanced portrayal of religious beliefs and practice.

Media statements about faith communities are sometimes unfactual, biassed and expressive of intolerance.

Freedom to express our religion is certainly hindered by current media practices, especially in the intrinsic denial of the right of full and free reply, and in the immediate juxtaposition in TV presentations of statements made months apart in different contexts. This practice gives the viewer an unbalanced, and sometimes false, appreciation of the true situation.


[by Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart - 2009]

Original published document - http://hreoc.gov.au/frb/submissions/Sub ... tewart.doc
_____________________________________________

There has to be something quite remarkable about reading the Exclusive Brethren quoting from the Bible and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in defence of their practice of ripping families apart. This so-called religion has nothing to offer those in Australian government who are looking for a solution ...

... they are part of the problem.

This confused and contradictory screed of the Hales family is nothing more than a hasty and mendacious attempt to legitimate the Hales human personality cult as a Christian sect and an insidious attempt to superimpose the Hales rules of behaviour on the public-at-large. The Hales cult is not Christian, not in fact and not in deed. The Exclusive Brethren do not follow Christ. They follow Hales, who they insist is incapable of sin and believe has inherited apostolic powers from his predecessors, those men on whom the Exclusive Brethren have conferred variously the vainglorious titles 'Elect Vessel' and 'Divinely Appointed Minister of the Lord in the Recovery.' This submission should be rejected in its entirety by the Commission as fatally defective. The Exclusive Brethren do not have clean hands.

But woe-betide you if you choose to leave the Brethren and have a belief of your own.

Why didn't they just say "We have the right to remove your family if you leave us."?

This deposition is monstrous. I hope some Brethren will see how two-faced it is.

To quote one section of the submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission:


Those who follow the Jesus code prioritise love over separation - love of God and love of neighbour - because that was what Jesus (and Paul too) required above everything else. See Mark’s Gospel chapter 12:28-31 and Romans 13:9.

It’s true that Exclusive Brethrenism is inherently based upon the principle of separation; but Christianity is based on love. Those who read this submission will probably wonder why on earth, if Messrs Hales, Myhill and Stewart want to defend Christan freedoms, they haven’t focused on the necessity of protecting the Christian’s primary obligation to love God and to love their neighbour as themselves.

Freedom of religion is important in a free society, but we have to set limits to this freedom. We can't have people thinking they can get away with anything they like, so long as they call it religion. Problems often arise when cults give pernicious practices and confidence tricks a religious label, expecting them thereby to acquire an instant sanctity and enjoy the protection of the law.

Suttee was a religious practice that is now rightly illegal everywhere; smoking cannabis was a religious practice that is now illegal in many countries.

Similarly I should like it to be made a criminal offence to use religious deceit to induce people to give you control of their savings or their property or their wives or their daughters. I should also like to see some legal or administrative constraints on the ability of parents to indoctrinate their children with some of the more extreme and antisocial religious teachings.

How then can the EB then say they are not in breach of this law?,they already impair all of their kids freedom from birth to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his/her choice.By being Exclusive Brethren and policing the exclusion from others.

And coercion is suggest to be:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force

In my opinion looking at that definition of coercion id say Ebism sure seems it comes within the intimidation aspects,and compliance and power for government definitely might fall into line with the some of the antics of Male EB elders or Chief hobnob of their hierarchy.



In my opinion number 1 above should really be number 2.

Surely it should really read:

1,The individual’s right to be free from discrimination and/ or intolerance 2, with a added individual’s right to freedom of religion as long as it abides within the peoples first and foremost right,which is to be free from discrimination and/ or intolerance

And I suppose that Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart are acting as “individuals” in this submission??

In my opinion they wouldn’t know the meaning of “individual.” Members of the Exclusive Brethren, who DARE to act as an individual are locked up and kicked out. Forced, against their will to separate completely and totally with their family members who remain member of the damaging CULT known as the Exclusive Brethren. They are not even allowed to ask individual questions, as proven by “Lindy’s List”.

Freedom of Religion and Belief in ANY Century is a two way street. The Exclusive Brethren appear to want it all their way. Surely Freedom of Religion and Belief means that EACH and EVERY individual has an EQUAL GOD GIVEN right to decide on their OWN Beliefs and choose their Religion based on those beliefs.

The Exclusive Brethren don’t know what being an individual means. They have their beliefs and so called religion IMPOSED on them by a COMMON man Bruce Hales.

I have a question. Would it be logical to have asked Hitler, or Saddam Hussein if what they did was a crime against humanity? Of course not… and for the exact same reason it is NOT logical to ask the Exclusive Brethren if what they do to their members who show an ounce of individualism or question their teachings is morally, Christianly or sometimes even legally acceptable.

These questions can ONLY be answered by those who have suffered AND continue, as we speak, to suffer at the hands of the Exclusive Brethren hierarchy. There are too many broken families to ignore what is going on here.

This so called submission form the three members of the Exclusive Brethren would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.


I agree with this statement IF it applied to each individual Exclusive Brethren but I fear what is meant here is

The Exclusive Brethren has a right to do what they want as a GROUP, and if Bruce Hales says JUMP you better not ask him how high or why? If you do, then you can say goodbye to your family and your job in most cases.

These writers have obviously read up on the subject but do they understand what they read?


NOTE the words FREEDOM – CHOICE - INDIVIDUALLY OR IN COMMUNITY WITH OTHERS.

I suggest that before the Exclusive Brethren attempt to change the law they should abide by what already exists. I guess now you will be saying, but we do live by this law. Cods Wallop! If that was so, why is it that this very week there are Exclusive Brethren young people who have used the powers of individual choice and chosen a path that although lawful is against the teachings of the Exclusive brethren and are now facing banishment from their family home and from any kind of contact with siblings, parents, cousins, Grandparents, Uncles and Aunts.

Quote:
Religious dress
Manner of dress and deportment should not be discriminated against or regulated unless they are a clear and obvious threat to security or social order.
Great! IF this meant that individual Exclusive Brethren members, who wished to, had the same privilege WITHOUT fear of punishment.


There you go again. Placing YOUR values and beliefs on other people. Have you forgotten the INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND CHOICE already???? What do you do? Is Sexuality a question on your employment application? I have never worked for EB and I have never been in a position where discussion on a fellow employee’s sexuality has been deemed a topic of conversation.


Hello, what’s this? To me it sounds VERY much like admittance that the Exclusive Brethren Schools would MUCH prefer NOT to have computers in their classrooms. If only THAT fact didn’t mean they would have to give up their government funding. John and David, you REALLY need to talk to Daniel about this. He has already stated in public that the rule about computers etc was only another of those myths.

I don’t know how often you EB individual Hierarchy members need to be told, but once again. People don’t HATE the Exclusive Brethren religion. People may HATE (and I say may because it’s an individual thing and I can only speak for myself) WHAT the Exclusive Brethren Leadership do to members who decide to act as an individual.

There is NOTHING Christian about breaking up and separating families, yet you continue to do it, causing heartache for those left in and under your control, and those who you have ousted.

Individual beliefs? Who can have them when they live with STRICT rules….. eg

Don’t cut your hair (f)
Don’t wear shorts (f & m)
Don’t wear trousers (f)
Don’t be employed by non-EB
Don’t go to non-EB schools
Don’t listen to radios
Don’t watch TV
Don’t go to the movies
Don’t go to shows
Don’t eat in a restaurant
Don’t own a computer that is not purchased from the EB
Don’t own a camera that is not purchased from the EB
Don’t own a mobile phone that’s not purchased from the EB
Don’t have a cup of tea with your non EB neighbours
Don’t have a cup of tea with your non EB parents
Don’t have a cup of tea with your non EB siblings
Don’t vote
Don’t go to University
Don’t use Contraception (no matter how many children you have.)
Don’t question EB rules
Don’t have friends outside of the EB
Don’t go flatting
Don’t plan to marry unless you have permission
Don’t be gay
Don’t marry outside of the EB
Don’t have facial hair (m)
Don’t join a union or any other outside organisation

And there are MANY MANY more DON’TS

Let the families of the IN and OUT Exclusive Brethren REUNITE. THAT is all we want. YOU Exclusive Brethren Hierarchy are the ones keeping them apart with your STRICT RULES which I believe is ANTI-Christian and has MUCH more to do with CONTROL than religion.

These are MY personal and individual beliefs on the matter and I have used my God given brain to determine them.

Hmmmm, really ? So why pursue peebs.net through the courts ? That act alone would appear to contravene the above.

I just think that when you read all this stuff that they are coming up with, they are tying themselves in knotts and are looking more desperate every day. I think you will find it's all getting to much for BDH so thats why his brother has stepped up to the plate.

One thing that is very clear is that they don't live in the real world.

And my family are still stuck in there.

I'm interested in the statement

"Holy Communion celebrated at 6am on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) has Iong been a deeply held religious conviction by various Christians"

Apart from the exclusive brethren, which other churches break bread at 6am?

The 6am Holy Communion has been celebrated by the EB since about 1970. It was first instigated by brethren in a place where JT Jnr was serving and had to catch a plane around 9am, i.e a travel arrangement, that's how deeply held the conviction is ! JT Jnr was then quoted as saying it was good......and hey presto ! The rest of those 39 years are history !

Isn't it funny how the brothers kissing each other edict didn't last 39 years...........thankfully ! It happened ! I remember being at a fellowship meeting where brothers were selected to go onto the platform and perform the osculatory act in front of the gathered congregation. Oh how the closet gay fraternity must have enjoyed that one !

6.00am communion is certainly not a biblical mandate. EBs used some very tortuous thinking about the 6th hour etc. In NT church times it is likely that communion would be held in the evening as Sunday was not a universally held day off - why should it have been? and folk would have been at work. That carried through right untill the Industrial Revolution when labour became more formally organised and eventually official time off was granted.

Hales and Co's comments are perverse.

They also claim the right to certain clothing. Firstly, they deny such choice to their followers (would a brother dare turn up wearing a tie?) and then mock other groups where people to do to church dressed in their Sunday best and the minister wears a dog-collar.

This submission is one of their more absurd and odd attempts to present themselves in a better light. Full of contradictions, halftruths and self interest. They want to be able to build a 'church' wherever they want but what would they say about a mosque? I'm not sure Jesus Christ would have made the argument for Christianity being the dominant religion.

And as for separation being at the core of Christianity! How did any of them ever become christians (if indeed they are) if separation was practiced as they demand? What about Jesus being the friend of tax gatherers, prostitutes and sinners? What about the sermon on the mount? I don't see separation in Matthew 5: 3 - 12 or Luke 4: 18 - 29.

And they really ought to make their minds up about technology.

I was always of the opinion that the "6th hour" in bibical times meant 6 hours after sunrise. I also remember a scripture somewhere that it was "in the middle of the day on the 6th hour." The breaking of bread surely is the most important service. Why would anyone have at a time that was most difficult to adher to.

As we might expect, the Anglican submission is rather different in style and content to the document submitted by Daniel Hales, John Myhill and David Stewart. It focuses attention specifically on the proposed Religious Freedom Act (RFA) and starts by setting out five principles which are considered fundamental to the consideration of freedom of religion and belief in Australia. Paragraph v. under the heading Principles for freedom of religion and belief in Australia on page 2 says:

On that last statement about social exclusion. Can you introduce to me an ex peeb who has not experienced. I am not the most educated person having left school at 14and a half, but these people are beyong the pail. And my family are still in there.

Unlike established mainstream Christian denominations with an established theology based on Holy Scripture and millenia of accepted practice, the Exclusive Brethren have only a human personality cult where the values and dogma change at the whim of their dictatorial leader and can be dated to the span of his lifetime. Their practices change like the hem lines in ladies' dresses change as the style of an era changes.

The substitution of business practices for theology within their so-called religious services (read business seminars) has created a dilemma for them: how to justify themselves as a religion, which they ceased to be many, many years ago -- if ever. They are businesmen passing themselves off as ultrareligious people -- wolves in sheep's clothing. Hence they employ corporate lawyers and public relations firms and any other means necessary to prop up this increasingly absurd illusion. The above submission is one such example of the work product generated by this collaboration.

For the EB to continue to attempt to pass themselves off as a religious entity is rather like watching someone trying to carry a brick in a paper bag, refusing to acknowledge that the physical properties of the bag won't allow this. They do it anyway, and they repeat the futile performance even after the brick drops out the bottom of the paper bag and hurts their toes. Why? Because Hales said so. Why does Hales say so? Because Daddy Hales said so. And why did Daddy Hales say so? Because that drunken pig farmer JHS said so. And why did JHS say so? Because that lecherous blasphemer JTJr said so. And so on back to the errors of their founder. Dogma is never ever a subsitute for theology, much less religion. Dogma is nothing more than hot air, and it's never very hot for very long.

The business interests of the Exclusive Brethren have become seriously threatened by their forays into political financing and their horrible child sexual abuse scandals. All the EB really have belief in is in the power of their money. They believe money allows them to buy their salvation by merely emulating Hales and thus becoming rich. 'You want to get to heaven?' 'Sure, how much does it cost, Mr. Bruce?'

For the benefit of our friends from Jackson Wells, who apparently closely monitor these forums on behalf of their EB client, I attach below a copy of the submission I sent to the Australian Human Rights Consultation in June 2009. I note that the Hales/Myhill/Stewart submission refers to several of the same UN resolutions as I did, albeit with different interpretations.

It would be most interesting to know the views of Jackson Wells on both submissions, but I am not holding my breath.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oopsie Whoopsie WW, did you mention closet gays? There are things bubbling below the surface in there, that are quite accepted, until someone dares to give voice publicly. A 'space' to watch!

If the Australian law argues that one has to be of the right age to give consent in the case of making sexual decisions (otherwise it would be sexual assault) - I cannot understand why is it not legally the same for consent to be part of a religious group?

I have read something that goes along the lines of:

The legal definition of consent is "free agreement"
That is, the law says that it is not "free agreement" if:
* You agree because of force, fear or fraud
* You agree because of fear of harm of any type to yourself or to someone else
* You agree because you are being unlawfully detained
* You are incapable of understanding the nature of the act
* You are mistaken in the belief that it is undertaken for another purpose (i.e. medical - in the case of sexual assault)

Can a child of 3, 5, or even 9 years of age give their "free agreement" to be part of a religion, without being exposed to at least one or two of the five dot-points listed above?

I think that the Human Rights Commission needs to look much further than just the submissions of different (self-interested) religious groups in order to assess the overall impact a certain belief or practice may have when it limits a child's right to live without fear, force or fraud.

Just think of how many children in the world, and across the generations, have been hurt under the guise of religious belief....

Some of the bullet points in Ellie's (above) post also apply to "Freedom of Religion" for adults.

"Fear... fraud....harm to someone else...mistaken in the belief it is undertaken for another purpose"

Many in the EB do not consent with free agreement - they are cooerced!