Is this appropriate for this Royal Commission

Is it appropriate to have followers of the Christian religion playing aleading role in a Royal Commission investigating child sexual abusewithin the Christian religion?

Should the religious beliefs and religious affiliations of allCommissioners be a matter of public record and open to question when the investigation includes abuse by the religious?

In an environment where my lack of belief leaves me open to culturalrejection, ridicule and rejection by the religious, anger and hatredfrom the adversely affected, shunning and exclusion from the mediathrough to religious outrage for having spoken out against the crimescommitted by so many.

The Secretariat of the Royal Commission is of the view that the mix ofcommissioners is such that these known aspect of bias will levelthemselves out amongst the other commissioners and that we get fairrepresentation in that way.

The divide for me comes where someone is able to believe in a god whenthere is no scientific evidence to support this and that there is noscientific evidence to support the idea that a particular religion hasbeen chosen to be the voice of this god based on the say so of some.

My understanding is that it was through the manipulation of the beliefin a god that was at the core of my abuse as a child; it is also myunderstanding my government should provide at the minimum an equalnumber of believers and non believers so that a balanced and independent opinion can be arrived at.

The aspect of belief is the core element for a large portion ofsurvivors who have a lifelong history of encountering religious biaswhich has resulted in the lifelong denial of justice to those who havebeen able to survive such a determined effort to keep their storiessilent.

Who represents the many non believing survivors? Should they believethey will find justice under a panel that is understood to be more than60% Christian and more than 80% believers in the Christian god. Shouldwe expect a balanced secular based outcome from a body that is notrepresentative of the Australian population; in fact the belief make upof the commission is the converse of the known sentiments of the people.

For me and for others that I know our perception is of dealing yet again with the stacked deck of belief leaving us yet again in anotherreligiously biased circumstance that has power, control and influenceover our lives and our right to justice under the rule of our law andnot the justice perceived under the beliefs systems of others.

This leaves us yet again dealing with a tax payer funded religiousinvestigation into the abuses of religion seeking to provide a religious based solution and outcome while claiming to be providing fair an equal representation of all stakeholders.

Are you comfortable with this circumstance or do you believe thereshould be a full disclosure of associations and affiliations with anyaspect of any religion from all engaged at official levels so that theaspect of religious bias can be openly investigated should that aspectarise through a submission or when appearing before the Commission.

There is no assurance that the perspective of many survivors will getequal and fair representation and that their testimony will not bepushed aside due to the influence of the religious beliefs of thecommissioners.

At the offset of this inquiry there should at least be the perceptionthat justice can be done; there must be the appearance of balance andfairness in this investigation.

This aspect lays at the core of the complaint by many survivorsproviding testimony and evidence to the inquiry; the Commission mustopenly show that the testimony of these survivors is not tainted by thebeliefs of the investigators or the Commissioners.

Do you feel your beliefs are equally and fairly represented with theCommission being predominantly Christian and thus is likely to result in another toxic outcome that will force survivors to be victims ofreligion yet again?

John A Brown
0756412311