There's a huge, ugly and public debate going on here about the fact that we have a national church and the two most vocal sides are getting really ugly. They're the hard-line right-wing Christians and the hard-line atheists. While I'm inclined to think that it's wrong for a democratic state to lend more financial support to one religion over the others and to give it's teachings prominence in elementary school religious classes I'm sad that the only voices heard in this debate are the loud rude ones. All they do is insult other peoples' choices, and thinking back on our conversations, I know it doesn't have to be that way. It's also ridiculous when you think about the ideology of each group: the Christians preach forgiveness and love thy neighbor while the atheists argue for freedom of choice and tolerance - none of this is apparent in the insults the groups are trading in the media : )
I just replied with some thoughts of my own about the issue, and figured I may as well post them here too. Maybe someone will have some comments to offer. My opinions are not very well researched or thought out (yet), so I would love to hear what others think.
Have a look also at my brother's new blog: Christianity in a Democracy.
---
That's a shame about the ugly debate going on in Iceland (though it's nice that it is making you think about me!) Extreme views always seem to get the most media attention - not just because the people are loud and rude, but because it's controversial and it sells. It's sad that people have to stereotype others into such black-and-white groups without realising that there is a range of opinion and a lot of room for understanding and perhaps compromise.
The separation of Church and State is an issue that arises in Australia from time to time as well. The separation is not enshrined in the Constitution like it is in America, but we don't have a national church. It was a big issue in the US because the founders escaped religious persecution in England because they didn't conform to the Established Church - hence, religious freedom was extremely important to them. It wasn't as much of an issue in Australia, though I'm not sure of the detailed history.
I don't think a national, state-established church is a good idea. I don't think it's the job of an elected government to legislate religious belief or practice. However, I do get annoyed at people who misuse the concept. It often gets trotted out when politicians have the nerve to express an opinion drawn from their religious beliefs. "We have a separation of church and state!" is the cry from secularists. Well, we don't have an established church, but that doesn't mean that politicians can't be religious. The separation of church and state means the absence of a state-sponsored church, not the absence of religious belief among the members of the government. Every politician has an ideology, worldview or over-arching belief system that guides their thinking. Why should religion be specifically excluded?
There was an interesting opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday. Emily Maguire (an author whose recent book I really enjoyed) is complaining about Kevin Rudd (recently elected leader of the federal Labor party) and his religious opinions. The only arguments she deals with explicitly, however, are from Tony Abbott and John Anderson, both right-wing politicians. One paragraph worth quoting:
Rudd is on a self-declared mission to reclaim Christianity from the right, which would be fine if he were the elected leader of a Christian organisation. As leader of a secular party and potential leader of our nation he should be talking about the values that unite those on the left, not the specific faith from which some of them derive these values. Why create a chasm between those who are working for essentially the same end: a more just and compassionate world? Why emphasise your religious faith - something that separates you from others with the same goal - when you could be emphasising your commitment to social justice?
I don't see why one can't do both. In fact, I'm fairly sure that what Rudd means by "reclaiming Christianity from the right" involves an emphasis on social justice (an aspect of Christianity sometimes overlooked by more right-leaning people). Why can't Rudd emphasise social justice as an outworking of his religious beliefs? A Christian can work alongside a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist to achieve social justice, while acknowledging that the reasons behind doing so may be different. Differences don't have to divide. Besides, Rudd was elected by people who presumably knew what he stood for - he's never made a secret of it.
11 comments:
Interesting. This quote is from The Religion Report, ABC radio, 3-1-07:
Kevin Rudd goes on to argue that the term 'family values' is one of the most debased terms in Australian political life, that the argument, 'Vote for me, I'm a Christian' is repugnant, and that Christian faith means nothing if it's not about social action.
I'm getting a whiff of Tom Wright-style theology here...
It's from far earlier than Tom Wright. Look into Christian Democracy as a movement, which dates from the late 19th Century. The idea that a Christian should vote for social justice but not necessarily other Christians is not a new one.
In fact, the leading political party in Germany now is the Christian Democractic party, but the movement is broader and not always aligned with any one party. Also, in the English tradition (rather than American) Christianity is more associated with the left than the right. A lot of early socialism was Christian in origin. I think it was really the rise of the Moral Majority and the Christian Right in the US in the 70s and 80s that gives us the impression we have now.
I agree with Emily Maguire.
Lara is right that in practise people with different motives can work together to effect the same ends. This works fine when people independently reach their conclusions before coming together.
But a society is not like that: we find ourselves sharing a land with people of disparate views and we try to work out a fair compromise. Worse still, law-making is a rhetorical process. If you emphasise the fact that a piece of legislation is religiously motivated, you leave everyone who doesn't share those beliefs asking, "Why should I obey this law?" While everyone is allowed to have religious motives, they really need to provide a non-sectarian reason for others to agree with them.
Oh, and I should point out a small mistake (that doesn't really effect your argument).
A lot of people say that the separation of church and state is a completely American phenomenon and that we have nothing like it in the Australian constitution. Funny thing is, the phrasings are almost identical:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, §116 - "The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The difference lies only in the interpretation! I agree that the US version only implies that there can't be a state church. But somehow they've come up with an interesting interpretation that prohibits funding of religious institutions but allows "In God we trust" to appear on their currency. Go figure.
Tim, I know that the idea predates Tom Wright. I mentioned Tom Wright because I'm reading one of his books at the moment, and he puts a lot of emphasis on Christianity being about the here and now, not just about the next life. He argues that we are called to bring in God's kingdom now, and to be places where heaven and earth meet now.
Nick, at first I thought you were making a good point, but after thinking for a few minutes, I'm not sure I do agree with you. Religious beliefs are not the only beliefs on which people differ. Would it really be possible to find reasons for legislation that everyone agrees with? Say a politician argues that stem cell research should go ahead because science should be given every opportunity to progress, whereas someone else might have good reasons for suggesting that the potential gains are not worth the financial cost involved. The stem cell debate is often cast in religious terms, but the fact is that there are people with shared religious beliefs on both sides.
We live in a democracy - don't all groups have a right to be heard? Can we say that religious views can't be expressed, while any other type of view is acceptable? As a Christian living in a democracy, don't I have a right to vote for someone who represents my beliefs, not just on religion, but on wider social issues as well, and expect that the person I vote for will work according to those beliefs? It's not possible to satisfy everybody's views, or to find reasons for things that everyone will agree with, but why should religion be singled out for exclusion?
Thanks for the clarification Nick. I'm glad you pointed out that it didn't affect my argument! The Constitution does not prevent people in office from expressing religious opinions, and so I wish people (i.e. letter writers to the SMH) would stop harping on about the separation between church and state whenever a politician mentions a religious belief.
re separation of church and state in the Australian constitution:
From the preamble:
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established...
But don't you remember, Tim? The preamble was rejected in the referendum. That line was the main reason I voted against it! In fact, looking at the stats now, it fared far worse than the republic question in every state and territory, not getting more than 44% anywhere.
Lara: While it's true that there doesn't always exist a non-religious reason for doing things a certain way, our leaders should always strive to find one and to present their motvies in a non-sectarian way because they just might convice a large majority but they know in advance that a religious reason will not do that. Even if they don't succeed in convincing a large majority, they won't have alienated their opponents in the same way as if they argued from religious motives.
I for one am far more happy to comply with laws I don't agree with if I can see that they are simply majority opinion without any particular group dominating this opinion. (Perhaps because I can imagine society's attitudes changing with time as the argument proceed rationally.)
On the other hand you do have people like Fred Nile arguing that a prayer should continue to be said at the opening of Parliament because it is not divisive at all, he claims it is "inclusive of the whole community". Obviously people like Nile don't consider atheists part of the community!
I know that Nile is just one extreme but there seems little difference between blessing parliament and using religious motives in parliament. Of course parliamentarians shouldn't have too keep their religious views secret but if they can give better reasons for their actions, their religious views will seem irrelevant to the business of politics. It will seem that they are simply doing what's best for everyone and that's what we need for a tolerant society.
Nick - my quote was from the Constituion as it is currently formulated, i.e. the Commonwealth of Australia Constituion Act that has been in force since 1 January 1901.
Preumably you are referring to the 1999 republic referndum, where the preamble question was indeed rejected. One might therefore argue that Australia was founded as a nation 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' but that we no longer wish to think of ourselves that way. On the basis of this argument, we could also say that Australia in 1999 rejected thinking of oursleves as "upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law". The 1999 referendum was about much, much more than the place of religion.
I can't immediately find an official reference, so Wikipedia will have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum
Also, on your last comment, it seems that you arguing that the reasons for a politician taking a particular course of action or decision don't really matter - it's just about how they present it to the public; that arguing an issue in a secular rationalist way promotes toleration, and that is key.
But what's to say that a secular argument is better than a religious one? Why is a tolerant society the key outcome our politicians should be striving for? I understand the liberal humanist perspective about rationality - but it's not enshrined in our constitution or political system and I don't even know if you could argue that the majority of Australia has thought through the issue enough to say that they want that to be the basis of their politicans' decision making. In a relativist society, what makes any rationale better than another?
As an aside, I do disagree with Nile's view that saying prayers is inclusive of all. If he argued it on the basis of tradition or constiutionally or because it reflects majority opinion, it would be more palatable (although 'tradition' would still make it a poor argument and I'm not sure that the other two grounds would hold).
My mistake. Seems there was already a preamble refering to God in the Constitution even before Howard tried to add another one. Seems we have "Ceremonial Deism" here same as they do in the USA.
As for the alternative preamble, it could also be people rejecting the idea of "honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders". That's the Duhem-Quine problem for you, you can't know which part of the whole to reject!
I wasn't saying that presenting a moral law to the public with a secular justification is only about appearances, though it might have sounded a little like that. I was trying to allow that people come to their various opinions via different routes and acknowledge that it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to use only secular reasoning to form moral opinions. But, if their opinions are defensible in secular terms, then they should be acceptable to every group and it shouldn't matter that it was originally formulated within the framework of one particular religion.
Post a Comment