The politics of religion

Government should be policy neutral between religion and non-belief. At the same time, the genuinely charitable organisations that religions run could continue to have tax-exempt status on the grounds that relief of poverty is a public benefit, subject to full disclosure of their income and expenditure in the same way that secular charities must justify their activities. Genuinely educational and scientific organisations could continue as before.

This is what the inquiry into Senator Xenophon’s bill should find, but it won’t, because, as argued above, Australian politics is controlled by the money that religious organisations are able to bring to the table at election time.

This fact of life was well explained by a former Labor candidate, Phil Robins, in his “The Family First Phenomenon” originally published in Australian Fabian News in 2005.

Robins pointed out that Family First, which originated in the Assemblies of God church, and also has links to Hillsong, is wealthy enough to stand candidates across Australia in federal and state elections in sufficient numbers to generate enough preferences to possibly determine the outcomes in swinging seats.

As if to prove Robins’ point, in the South Australian state election in March this year, some Labor candidates distributed how-to-vote cards to electors with the large caption “FAMILY FIRST” indicating a voter should preference Labor. Some Labor campaign workers wore “put your FAMILY FIRST” T-shirts when handing out the cards (see “Family First slams Labor’s dirty tricks”, The Australian, March 22, 2010.)

Combine that “passing off” hanky-panky with politicians’ fear of the moving feast of the Catholic vote and that’s enough to help turn Australia into what I call a “soft theocracy”: democracy compromised by fear of the religious vote, however small.

While the Secular Party came into existence in 2005 it does not have the millions that Family First are able to find from various sources to compete and act as a counterweight.

Given that is so, and while the Tax Office knows the tax exemptions for religion are ancient and ridiculous, and many politicians also know this, and as there’s no groundswell of public opinion as yet against these exemptions, it is all but impossible not to kowtow to the church parties for preferences.

That is why Senator Xenophon’s bill will fail to get the support it needs. There is also the point that his very worthy attempt to speak to the allegations of former members of the Scientology about “coerced abortions, false imprisonment, breaches of occupational health and safety laws, stalking, harassment and extortion” could be equally applied to other religious organisations as well.

That surely is enough to kill it.

It would be a huge double standard not to apply the law equally. Why should institutions within mainstream religious organisations continue to have tax-exempt status when there are very many proven instances of child rape and cover-ups within their walls?

Senator Xenophon’s valiant attempt to do something about Scientology in particular is commendable. While the major parties have humoured him thus far, their self-interest and their indifference to the rights of those injured physically, psychologically and financially by religion will unfortunately continue for the foreseeable future. Preference votes are more important than human rights, including the human rights of abused children. Isn’t this what politics is all about?