Paying “lip service” means acknowledging something with the mouth but not the heart. Over the last few years, it’s become more common for decision-makers to pay mere lip service to religious freedom—if they mention it at all.
The Law Commission’s recent issues paper, which looks at amending the Human Rights Act to increase anti-discrimination protections for transgender and non-binary people, had very little to say about the impact of its proposals on relevant religious beliefs. Similarly, the Human Rights Commission’s report on conversion practices and “conversion ideology” was heavily weighted against religious freedom and advised religious communities to change or suppress entirely legal beliefs and practices.
A new report on religious freedom in New Zealand raises similar concerns. The report is written by Marcus Roberts, a Research Fellow at Maxim Institute and lecturer in the University of Auckland’s Law Faculty. It points out that during the Covid-19 response, the Ministry of Justice apparently forgot to advise how government measures would affect religious communities’ rights even while it considered the relevance of other fundamental freedoms. And it references the High Court’s decision in New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance v Attorney-General, where Ellis J effectively gutted the right to religious freedom by requiring that the plaintiffs show their belief (in this case, about the morality of abortion) was held unanimously by fellow believers before it would qualify for full legal protection. As the report says, “it would be almost impossible to show that religious teaching and practice were not contested within any religious community or tradition.”*
To reverse this, we need to cultivate a society-wide appreciation of the benefits of religion and religious freedom—not only for adherents to a particular faith, but for all of us. To this end, Roberts argues that religious liberty is good for individuals and for society.
It’s good for individuals because, for example, it allows us to “address ultimate things (the meaning of life, life after death, the origin of the universe) that are universal and timeless”, the answers to which are a core part of every person’s identity. It also allows each of us to evaluate and develop our worldview: “even a committed atheist always has the opportunity to test and refine her atheistic commitments in an intellectual milieu informed, in part, by religious believers.” Roberts also argues that “religious people are more likely to feel they belong to a community,” have better mental health,” and “are generally happier, healthier, and longer-lived.”
It’s good for societies because, for example, “Free religious discussion and thought requires one to explain the significance of rituals and beliefs.” In turn, that requires the ability to persuade, to consider other points of view, and to do so by reference to beliefs and practices that draw us together in communities. Religious liberty also protects us against an overbearing state and against “authoritarian government”, and it means “religious radicals’ views are more likely to be widely known and repudiated, thus reducing their attraction.” Roberts draws on social science evidence showing that more religious freedom equates to less social conflict: “44 per cent of all governments that interfered with an individual’s right to worship suffered more than 200 cases of violent religious persecution compared to only nine per cent of governments which did not interfere.”
If religious freedom has clear benefits but is under-appreciated by decision-makers, how can we restore the balance? Roberts offers three recommendations. The first is that professional development for judges should “include some form of religious literacy” that fosters “a basic understanding of the history, central texts (if applicable), beliefs, practices, and contemporary manifestations of the most important religious traditions in New Zealand”. That would make it more likely that judges recognise and give proper weight to religious issues when they come to court.
Roberts also recommends that policy-makers should develop an accurate understanding of religious freedom. Rather than reducing it “to freedom of worship only, which protects believers as long as they stay quiet in the public square and manifest religion only in their private lives”, they should recognise that it “includes the freedom to manifest one’s religion in observance, practice and teaching, both in public and in private.” Thus public servants should be given religious literacy training in the same way as judges.
Lastly, Roberts points out that rights and freedoms endure only when they are socially valued. This means, he says, that religious believers should be more confident “in arguing for religious liberty and for advancing religious viewpoints in public”, and that non-believers should acknowledge “the importance of religious liberty as good for the whole of New Zealand society, as well as for each individual, religious or not.”
Fewer New Zealanders are religious these days. The latest Census figures show less than half of Kiwis affiliate with a religious faith (52 percent have “no religion”, up from 42 percent in 2013), and Roberts cites data showing that only around 25 percent of our population can be said to be regularly practising their religion. These figures are reflected among our leaders; he refers to a 2021 study showing that 53 percent of the public service have “no religion”, slightly higher than the general population at that time (48 percent).
Religious believers are a substantial minority, but a minority nonetheless. In this context, merely paying lip service to religious freedom will inevitably erode the real-world value and impact of this right. Roberts’ recommendations offer an opportunity to change hearts and minds, perhaps most importantly among those who make decisions that affect us all. His proposals deserve careful attention.
* Disclosure: In this discussion and in some other sections, the report draws on an earlier paper I wrote for Maxim Institute: COVID and Our Constitution: How a pandemic affected our body politic and culture.
Read Eroding Our Conscience: Why we must shore up religious freedom in Aotearoa New Zealand (Maxim Institute, 2024)
Watch Marcus Roberts discuss his report with Maxim Institute’s Tim Wilson:
