Over these Christmas holidays it seems as though religious leaders have been happy to talk about anything other than religion. In Australia, climate change and refugees have featured prominently in church sermons. In England, the Archbishop of Canterbury used his Christmas message to champion the importance of waste recycling.
Tony Blair was right when a few weeks ago, on the eve of his conversion to Catholicism, he said that any British politician who talked about religion ran the risk of being regarded as a "nutter". He drew a comparison with the United States where politicians were not afraid to discuss their faith.
In Australia, there is certainly a chance that a politician who talks about God (or even a god) will be laughed at. An explanation about why religious leaders in this country are more comfortable debating politics than religion might be their fear that the phenomenon described by Blair will eventually extend beyond politicians to include themselves.
In this country, a politician speaking about religion also faces the risk of something worse than being thought a nutter. It's just as possible that anyone who admits that their religion influences the way they vote in parliament will be accused of being a dangerous theocrat intent on introducing the moral majority into Australia.
The evidence that a politician who talks about religion faces such a threat is widespread. It is obvious in the treatment of Tony Abbott, tagged by the Canberra press gallery as the "mad monk", to the way the ABC has labelled Catholic social groups, such as Opus Dei, as semi-secret organisations.
There are a number of contradictions in the way that religion and politics is treated in Australia. The first is the inability of much of the media to appreciate that a secular viewpoint carries as many moral assumptions as does one determined on religious grounds.
The debate about stem cell research, for instance, is often presented as though one side is arguing a moral position and the other side isn't. This is not true. In fact, the arguments from both sides of the debate are founded in ethical and moral considerations.
It is impossible for anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, not to approach policy questions without some moral framework. Morality simply cannot be taken out of politics.
To be fair, one of the reasons why the media handles these issues the way it does is because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the separation of the church and state. The original intention of this ideal was to ensure that the government did not interfere in the affairs of the church (or churches). It means, for example, that the government could not institute an official state religion and that political office holders were not required to pass religious tests.
Separation of church and state does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that anyone with religious convictions was disqualified from participating in politics.
There is also a contradiction in the way the media reports political and moral statements from the churches. Contributions on "social justice" issues are welcomed, but contributions on avowedly "moral" issues are not. The implication is that it's entirely appropriate for politicians to pay attention to religious leaders who preach about the treatment of David Hicks or the evils of WorkChoices, but when those same church leaders start talking about abortion or euthanasia politicians should ignore them.
For the past 11 years there has been an added element in the mix of religion and politics in Australia -- the presence of the Howard government. The so-called authority of the religious right on the federal Coalition was the subject of widespread investigation and study. Any discussion of religion immediately brought with it accusations of how Howard government ministers pandered to the conservatism of the Christian evangelical churches.
In recent years claims such as "God is working for the Liberal Party" and "an extreme form of conservative Christianity now has real influence on our politicians and their policies" became the stock-in-trade of the Liberals' opponents. The problem with these theories is that Howard's critics struggled to provide examples of this supposedly pernicious power.
The former government's positions on illicit drugs or same-sex relationships were certainly the same as those of some church organisations, but many non-religious groups held similar positions. If indeed the religious right did have the influence claimed for it, then seldom has so much influence been used to so little effect.
So far Kevin Rudd has defied Tony Blair's pronouncement. The new Prime Minister has proved to be no less religious than his predecessor -- if anything, Rudd has been more willing to talk about religion than was Howard, most notably in his description of himself as a Christian socialist.
Having made much of his Christianity during 2007, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, religion has on the Prime Minister's policies during 2008.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment