PRIME Minister Julia Gillard gave a well-crafted speech to the UN General Assembly in support of Australia’s bid for a seat on the Security Council. 

However, it contained a passage that lovers of free speech would have found disturbing.

It came in the wake of the demonstrations by Muslim fanatics against the pathetic video that ridiculed the prophet Mohammed and led to a call from Muslim clerics for an international outlawing of blasphemy.

While not specifically supporting the call, the Prime Minister concluded the passage with these words: “Denigration of religious beliefs is never acceptable.”

I’m not exactly sure what “acceptable” means in this context, but I do hope that she is not opening the door to any restrictions on Australians’ rights to criticise, satirise or lambaste much of the nonsense that huddles under the broad umbrella of religious belief.

For example, are the ravings of L. Ron Hubbard to go unchallenged – or un-denigrated – just because his Church of Scientology has been granted religious status in many parts of the world? Should the contortions of “holy rollers” and the babble of Southern Baptists speaking in tongues escape all ridicule?

And what of that belief system that spawned a priestly class of predators who used their authority to rape and sexually assault tens of thousands of children across the world? Should it be spared simply because it promoted a mindset that fiercely denigrates what many of us consider the keys to human progress: the power of reason and the scientific method?

Sad to say, it is the intolerance inherent in religious belief that has triggered the killing of untold thousands over the centuries and it continues to bedevil the human family today.

The Middle East, the crucible of the three most culpable religions, is a tinder box. The Mullahs or Iran are building themselves a nuclear bomb. The theocratic Israelis want to nuke them with their own WMD before it’s complete. And the Christian Americans find themselves torn between the two.

Is this really the time to give religion free rein? Perhaps Ms Gillard might consider, on second thoughts, that a more moderate approach would be to promote the new enlightenment that science has provided to eliminate the dark shadows of ignorance and fear that lie at religion’s base.

We can readily appreciate that, in the past, religion inspired great works of music and art, though these days artists turn overwhelming to nature, science and humanity for inspiration. We can also acknowledge that many religious people do admirable charitable works.

But in many countries – from Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, from Afghanistan to Northern Ireland – religion is inextricably bound to politics. And it is the religious component of the mix that is responsible for its most unacceptable consequences, from the denigration of women to the holy wars against compatriots.

The real issue is not the denigration of religion as such, but in choosing only one to disapprove while excluding all the rest.

robert@robertmacklin.com