Keeping Religion out of Australian politics

• Is a Religious View of History Valid? (including Peter's letter to the nutters)
• Can Political Activism Separate Church and State? (including Taking Exotic Believers Seriously)
• Accidentally Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism?

Introduction

This document draws together perspectives on the apparently desirable goal of keeping religion out of politics in Australia, and on means to achieve this.

The issue is by no means straight forward. For example, in January 2009, a political leader (Mr Peter Costello) expressed the view that Australia had benefited from its Christian heritage, and because of this was said to be: 

• mad for stating that God-given laws in the Bible had been and remained important to Australia. [However, unlike another politician who explicitly based his political philosophy on his Christian views, Mr Costello's statement was apparently made  to a Christian group, ie not in a political context - and thus seemed consistent with the separation of church and state that had advantaged Australia (see below)];
• unsuitable for political leadership on the grounds that he was unable to separate religion and state because he suggested that a biblical heritage was important to tolerance and order. [However: (a) his statement seemed factual; (b) divinely sourced moral law keeps disputes about this out of politics; and (c) criticism of him was itself apparently an intrusion of religious bias into politics (see below)].

In April 2009 it was suggested that efforts by three new political parties to separate church and state would result in a much greater focus on religion in a future federal election. However such efforts seemed likely to increase rather than reduce the role of religion in Australian politics, and to have serious adverse consequences. Strengthening the ability of (broadly-defined) 'churches' to address spiritual questions and to define and disseminate the nature of moral behaviour without need to get involved in politics would be a better solution. Though there does seem to be an ongoing need for a 'default' religion to avoid politicising moral and spiritual questions facing governments, this can not make 'church' leaders into experts on public policy questions (see below).

In July 2010, ethics classes in Australian schools were publicly advocated which would have the effect of establishing claims about moral authority that were not based on Christian scriptures. This constituted a (presumably unintended) effort to liberate Australians from the Judeo-Christian heritage that has been the basis of their liberty. It would create room for claims to moral authority by political elites - a process that seems to be already underway and likely to have adverse social, political and economic consequences (see below).

Should A Religious View of History Disqualify Potential Political Leaders?

Important issues related to Australia's system of government were raised when it was suggested that Mr Peter Costello's 2009 Australia Day address to an evangelical Christian group proved that he was unable to separate church and state and was thus unsuitable for political leadership (Fitzgerald R., "Costello's hopes should have burned out after sermon", The Australian, 23/2/09).

Mr Costello's address had suggested that a biblical heritage was central to the development of Australia and the foundation of its society, and that the (Judeo-Christian) scriptures and Ten Commandments had been the basis of peaceful tolerance of each other and of order.

Ross Fitzgerald's criticism appeared suspect, as it surely is simply a fact that the Christ-ian approach to interpersonal morality (ie based in individual consciences responsible to God) provided the basis for tolerance and order for many hundreds of years in Australia and in British society whose traditions and institutions Australia inherited.

Moreover, it has been critical to getting religion out of politics (because, by contrast with many other traditions, this means that the state has not had to try to define the nature of, and enforce, morality in interpersonal relationships) - see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty. The latter also noted that:

• keeping the state out of the business of defining and enforcing ethical and moral behaviour allowed the emergence of systems of law and government based on individual liberty, and these have conferred important political, governance and economic advantages;
• there has been a significant decline in committed adherence to Christianity in Australia (as Ross Fitzgerald's article also pointed out);
• numerous social dysfunctions have emerged, presumably as a consequence of the loss of the Christian 'put others first' ethical ideal within the community generally. For example, if the claims by those who have studied child sexual abuse are correct, there are (perhaps) millions of individuals in the broader community who are guilty of offences for which Fitzgerald suggested that hundreds(?) of priests and ministers have faced courts (see About Child Sex Abuse);
• pressure is coming on politicians to 'do something' about the social dysfunctions that result from the breakdown of interpersonal morality - and this must involve attempts to regulate ethics and morality which will destroy the individual liberty that has been central to Australia's system of law and government.

As an email reproduced below noted, while Mr Costello pointed out to a group of Christians that the Christian foundations of Australia's society are important, he has not (unlike a more prominent political leader) sought to claim religious moral authority for particular political policies or to advocate church involvement in politics.

Peter's letters to the 'Nutters' (Email to Editor of Crikey, 28/1/09)

On 29/1/09, you suggested in Crikey Says that:

There’s a moment in Proust when he relates the experience of discovering through a sudden, illuminating fragment of conversation, that the person with whom you’re talking, someone you’d assumed was perfectly civilized, intelligent and rational, is in fact quite and utterly, mad.

Peter Costello produced just such a moment of revelation in his address to the Catch the Fire prayer rally in Melbourne on Monday. Delivered by video, the man who for so long craved the Australian Prime Ministership, declares his firm belief that the Bible and the Ten Commandments form the foundation of Australian society and its property laws, and that any movement away from those "God-given commandments" will lead to a breakdown of social order. "As we look back over hundreds of years of Australian history, we can still see the benefits of God to us in this country," says Costello, presumably surprising indigenous Australians, whose ancestors were here a damn sight longer.

Declaring one’s Christian faith is one thing. Arguing that only the maintenance of Christianity preserves order, directly implying that those of other faiths, or its complete atheistic absence, are a threat to that order, is an extraordinary statement from a major political figure in an allegedly secular state.

John Howard blocked Peter Costello from the Prime Ministership as long as he could, preferring even to take his party to defeat rather than let him run it. Based on this bizarre rant, it looks like Howard’s judgement was absolutely right.

(Enthusiasts can watch the full Peter's Letter to the Nutters here. Just click on the picture:)

Intrusion of religion into politics is a real concern.

However Crikey should note that Mr Costello is not the only Australian political leader to have invoked Christianity or religion.

For example Mr Rudd did so, see Restoring 'Faith in Politics' - though he used his Christian faith as the basis for publicly espousing a particular political theory and endorsing the role of churches in politics - rather than (as Mr Costello did) as the basis for exhorting prayer by a Christian group. There is moreover apparently a network of members of Australia's Parliament who gather to pray in Parliament House - and who routinely exhort others to pray for political leaders.

Furthermore Mark Latham (a former ALP leader) reportedly said that politics in future would be concerned solely with values (ie with the traditional business of religion), rather than with debates about programs and budgets.

Crikey is rightly concerned about the intrusion of religion into politics - because the separation of church and state has been critical to the individual liberties that have yielded significant political and economic benefits to Australia. There are moreover many signs that the foundation of that liberty is being threatened by the desire of political leaders to be recognised as the authorities on the nature of, and enforcers of, moral interpersonal relationships (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

However Mr Costello's endorsement of Biblical moral laws did not do seem to do this. He merely restated the traditional and uniquely Judeo-Christian view that defining and enforcing moral laws are the province of God (rather than of political leaders). It is the absence of such a world-view that leads to the loss of liberty (op cit). It is, for example, the view that religion should be the basis of government that makes Islamism unlikely to be a successful political theory (see Discouraging Pointless Extremism).

Finally, it is worth considering whether Ross Fitzgerald's article (which suggested that an individual should be disqualified from political office because of their Christian faith) itself reflected an unfortunate intrusion of religion into Australia's politics.

The fact is that widespread acceptance of New Testament teachings within the community (which must be a church rather than a state responsibility for reasons outlined below) is the foundation of Australia's legal and government system - so it is inevitable that a substantial number of Christians will be involved in politics

Familiarity with the Bible: Churches' not State Responsibility (email sent 24/12/09)

Paul Syvret,
Courier Mail

Re: 'My god, its personal', Courier Mail, 22/12/09

In your comments on Tony Abbott's call for school children to gain a working knowledge of the Bible, you argued that faith (or the lack of it) is a personal matter and that it is hazardous for this to be dictated by the state.

Your argument has a great deal to commend it (eg see Continuing the Separation of Church and State, 2006 and Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics, 2009).

However, the issue is not that simple, because it is not the Bible (or even the New Testament) that is the foundation of our civilization as Mr Abbott asserted. Rather it is general community understanding of, and belief in, what the New Testament says that has been foundational (eg see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

The title of your article ('My god, its personal') illustrates the point very well. It is the expectation that people will be morally guided by their individual consciences responsible to God (rather than by human authorities) that allowed the emergence of a legal and government systems based on individual liberty. The assumption by states that faith / moral behaviour would be a 'personal' matter, rather than a community matter with enforced individual compliance, is founded in widespread acceptance of New Testament teaching. Moreover the resulting assumptions about individual liberty have had major political and economic advantages (op cit).

Such liberty does not emerge other traditions (eg see Constraints due to Cultural Traditions in Competing Civilizations; A Response to Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain's Manifesto; and note that under Confucian traditions, which are increasing influential in Australia's environment, there is a presumption that social elites will define and enforce the rules of interpersonal behaviour so that what people are expected to believe in is anything but a 'personal' matter).

Restoring the moral foundations of our civilization must however be the responsibility of the churches rather than of the state, if liberal traditions are to be maintained. Some speculations about this are outlined in Ethical Renewal (in Competing Civilizations).

• Irony
• Origin of Freedom
• Strengthening Apolitical Churches
• Default Religion?
• Not Policy Experts
• Casting the First Stone

Can Political Activism Separate Church and State?

In April 2009 it was suggested that religion was likely to play an increasingly important role in the next federal election, because three new parties, who favour the separation of church and state, will challenge the political influence of what were seen as 'self opinionated bishops and crazy imams' (Fitzgerald R.,  'Moves afoot to counter God's sway over the ballot box', The Australian, 20/4/09

Irony

However increasing the role of religion in a federal election is not a very efficient way of achieving the apparent goal of reducing the role of religion in Australian politics.

The new parties nominated as strongly favouring the separation of church and state were:

• the Liberal Democratic Party - which was said to endorse small government, civil liberties and personal liberty;
• the Australian Sex Party - which was said to oppose internet censorship, advocate a royal commission into sexual abuse in churches and standardised sex education;
• a prospective Secular Party - which was said to want to remove 'advancement of religion' from the definition of charities under the tax act.

It is ironic that (by trying to reduce 'God's sway over the ballot box') these parties were expected to increase the role of religion in politics, and thus have an impact that was quite contrary to promoting the 'freedom' that was suggested to be their unifying goal.

The Origin of Freedom

Individual freedom in societies like Australia (which is quite rare in the world) has been the product of the long separation of religion and politics (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty). This has been possible because, given the past wide acceptance of Christ-ian teachings, the morality of individual behaviour could be assumed to reside in individual consciences responsible to God - rather than being defined and enforced at the whim of human authorities as is more commonly the case.

As Christian adherence has declined this assumption has become suspect in recent decades. Thus political leaders have sought, or been expected to, exert moral authority - thereby: putting moral values 'up for grabs'; bringing religion back into politics; and creating very profound new constraints on the freedom of individual behaviour (op cit).

Strengthening the Capacity of Apolitical 'Churches' to Operate Independently

A 'Secular Party' that wanted to keep religious questions out of political debates would be ill-advised to try to achieve this by disabling the non-political organisations that are able to address them - as this would just cause such questions to revert to the political domain.

Rather, increasing the separation of religion and state (which has had many practical advantages) would best be achieved by strengthening organisations that can credibly define and advocate moral behaviour based in individual consciences (responsible to God rather than to other people if liberty is to be preserved) and address spiritual questions while remaining independent of the state or of politics. There seems to be a solid basis for doing so (see Ethical Renewal in Competing Civilizations). However, in principle this could include not only organisations run by bishops and imams, but also organisations whose particular 'religion' was (say) atheism or humanism (both of which have their own current evangelists) - if they were able to present credible moral principles derived on that basis that would: (a) reliably locate responsibility for moral behaviour in individual consciences; and (b) not be able to be manipulated at the whim of powerful or influential people.

An Official 'Religion'?

This raises the obvious question about whether Australia should have an official (default) 'religion', and if so what should it be? This is clearly a matter of growing significance.

Taking Exotic Believers More Seriously (Email to David Burchell, 13/4/09)

RE: O ye of little faith, take these exotic believers seriously, The Australian, 13/4/09

As I interpreted it, your article:

• suggested that the ABC has now, in effect, semi-officially stated that Christianity is no longer Australia's religious centre;
• implied that this position is now occupied by the ideologies of unnamed intellectuals and the media;
• argued that Western intellectuals (who originally were mainly Christian clergy) have:
  • undergone a transformation over the past 150 years on the basis of scientific advances and personal introspection, leading to the emergence of a new faith that is based on philosophy, the arts and the selfless pursuit of political causes;
  • been concerned about the continued influence of Christianity.

I should like to submit for your consideration that the said authorities of the new dominant faith (ie unnamed intellectuals and the media) are going to have a challenging time over the next few years because:

• the retreat from the Christian foundation of moral interpersonal relationships has led to numerous severe social dysfunctions, and seeking to promote political solutions to those problems (as many are now attempting) is a formula for a loss of individual liberty (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty); and
• the foundations of scientific atheism may be becoming a little shaky (see Problems in an internally deterministic worldview).

It may be that (as your article implied) the authorities of the official new faith will come to wish that they had taken those exotic believers more seriously.

The answer to the first question (ie whether Australia should have an official religion) is obviously 'yes', because there would otherwise be no default basis for determining moral and spiritual questions - so that they would become political issues (ie the separation between church and state would disappear altogether).

The difficulties of seeking to operate without a default religion has been well illustrated by vain efforts that have been made to politically define values that should be sought in state schools, when any value system depends on a much broader world view (eg see The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools).

In relation to the second question, it is clear that Christianity has an established role (eg providing the framework within which legal and governance institutions have been developed, and being the basis of religious observances at official events). Moreover the individual liberty that Christianity enabled appears to be one of the sources of strength that have benefited Western societies in recent centuries, and not all alternative religions would be compatible with Australia's social and political institutions.

None-the-less Christianity's founder, Jesus of Nazareth, did not use force to compel adherence with his teachings (eg consider Luke 18:18-23). Thus it would be reasonable for those proposing an alternative official 'religion' to make a case for submission to the electorate. Any analysis of the implications of such a shift would necessarily be much more profound and complex than for the average referendum.

Churches can't be Public Policy Experts

Anyone who believes that they have a better understanding of political questions than 'self opinionated bishops and crazy imams' should easily be able to make this clear to political leaders and the electorate. There is good reason to doubt that religious principles (which are timeless and applicable to individual behaviour) can ever in themselves provide a sound basis for deciding complex questions about ever-changing social and economic issues. Christianity's founder, Jesus of Nazareth, himself reportedly stated that he was not interested in establishing a 'kingdom of this world' (John 18:36).

Casting the First Stone

Anyone who really was serious about the problem of child sexual abuse, as the Australia Sex Party was said to be, would be insisting that governments establish a royal commission into the incidence of this in the general community - as homes (rather than church-run institutions) appear to be where the vast majority of such abuse arises according to those who have studied the subject (see About Child Sex Abuse) and there is nothing morally controversial about such behaviour.

Accidentally Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism? (Email sent 13/7/10)