Religious beliefs are not innate or immutable.

Alan Ringwood writes:

There is nothing new about religions seeking to shut down criticism and opposing views. 

It’s a story as old as religion itself. 

The question is to what extent the state should step in to outlaw and criminalise anti-religious speech.

Basically none, unless to calls for violence.

Religious beliefs are in a different category. Unlike race, they are not innate or immutable. 

Some religious beliefs – for example concerning the rights and permissible treatment of women and girls – are fully worthy of the contempt of others in a modern democratic society. Other religious beliefs may be just as deserving of ridicule. 

Millions of Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth, and all living things, were very recently created by the Abrahamic God. We can assert that this belief is wrong. But it is worse than just wrong – it is nonsense.

And calling certain beliefs nonsense will in many religions will get you a shrug of the solider. While in others to will get r=death threats – or worse

Extending s.131 to cover religion consequently risks criminalising not just Brian Tamaki. It risks criminalising anyone who attacks Tamaki’s religious beliefs.

So hate speech law will be used to stop people criticising Brian Tamaki.

I think I should have the right to say the Brian has no more spiritual authority to appoint himself a Bishop or an Apostle than Ms Louise Ciccone.