Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Parliament is not a church

By Meg Wallace - posted Wednesday, 16 January 2008


In 2006 Kevin Rudd expressed his views on the relationship between religion and the state. He spoke at a conference held in honour of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who was executed for his anti-Nazi activities.

Bonhoeffer was a brave and intelligent man. He was a minister of religion, and a member of the German resistance, who was part of a bid to assassinate Hitler. He was captured and executed. Truly a man to be admired.

Rudd’s speech was published as an article in The Monthly and expanded on these views in an interview with Stephen Crittenden on the ABC’s Religion Report. Rudd declared that Bonhoeffer is the man he admires most of the 20th century.

Advertisement

However, it is proposed here that as the political leader of a nation where there is a wide diversity of beliefs, both religious and secular, Prime Minister Rudd would do better by seeking political (rather than personal moral) guidance, in the views of a political theorist, not a theologian.

Such a theorist is John Rawls, widely acclaimed political philosopher, who was concerned to ensure those of all beliefs, not just Christian beliefs, enjoy equal opportunity for self-fulfilment, both material and immaterial. All citizens would have a say in government, but Rawls was aware of the need to ensure that no ideology, religious or otherwise, would be used to influence unduly policy and legislation.

Rawls was concerned with developing a model for a liberal democratic society that provides for justice and fairness, for all members. He began by considering how we would determine such a society by developing what he called a theory of justice.

He realised that those determining the principles that should underlie such a society would naturally want to bring to the task their personal perspectives and interests such as their religious or other beliefs, their gender, ethnicity and culture. They would tend to favour a society that best served these interests. To ensure this did not happen, he concluded, such people would have to work from behind a “veil of ignorance”. Their task would involve determining a society that is just and fair for all, regardless the above specific characteristics. Religious beliefs as such, then, would not determine the principles of a just society.

Under these circumstances, practical reason would lead our architects of society to require the best basic standard of fairness, equality and treating others as one would want to be treated: standards that all could accept. The principles of justice would form what Rawls went on to call “public reason”: reasoning for the structure of government and human rights upon which all citizens could agree. Public reason would be affirmed through a democratic process that fairly includes all individuals and underlies public policy. It would thus be “freestanding” of personal philosophical, religious and moral doctrines (“comprehensive doctrines”).

While those participating in the functions of government may be guided by their personal convictions, public reason requires that public policy, legislation and judicial decision-making is justified from principles of public reason, not comprehensive doctrines (although the two may well be compatible).

Advertisement

Meantime, individuals can adopt their chosen comprehensive doctrines and exercise these in accordance with the accepted public reason (that is, in a nutshell, limited only if they adversely affect the rights of others to do the same).

This model, Rawls argues, provides a means for a peaceful, tolerant and durable liberal democracy, with true freedom of belief for all. The price for this freedom and durability is reciprocal recognition of the rights of others, based on an “overlapping consensus” regarding the principles of liberal democracy.

The many nations that have subscribed to the international human rights instruments (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Right and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights: Australia is signatory of all three) have, in effect, adopted a form of public reason by accepting basic internationally recognised human rights.

A central aspect of Rawls’s approach, then, is that it is consistent across all beliefs and all circumstances when it comes to dealings between the church and state. The state is neutral, and personal beliefs are not the deciding factor in governance, thus discounting arbitrariness, unpredictability and favouritism.

How do Prime Minister Rudd’s views on church and state measure up to this political model of a durable liberal democracy in a society of diverse, often mutually incompatible beliefs? I believe they fall short in several ways.

First, Rudd is selective. He gives Christianity favoured consideration, and fails to tell us how his views on belief/state relations operate in respect of other religions and non-religious beliefs. Rudd praises Bonhoeffer for following his moral views. He agrees with Bonhoeffer’s repudiation of the two kingdoms: the view that there is the “inner sphere where the Kingdom of God reigns” and the outer sphere, the “realm of the law”, which is “not subject to the gospel’s message”. This raises the question of whether Rudd would merge the two. This would mean theocracy. But simultaneously, and confusingly, Rudd does go on to say that a Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates “must be argued, and weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular policy”.

Rawls points out that a satisfactory resolution of such debate would not be feasible. How, for example, would you weigh the different, incompatible views of different gods, all of whom are to their followers immutable and unquestionable?

The only way for a sustainable liberal democracy is to develop policy and legislation from public reason - values that all can accept. This includes mutual reciprocal recognition of basic human rights, the closest we can get to a tolerant society in which there are a diversity of incompatible beliefs.

In a just society, unless argument can be made that legislation dealing with such matters can be justified on the ground of public reason, it does not give equal consideration to the right of all individuals to exercise their freedom of belief. This leads to dissatisfaction, disharmony and social unrest. Thus public reason should not appeal simply to religious or other ideologies.

The political actions of Bonhoeffer, based as they were on his religious beliefs, are commendable because they were founded on what we all recognise as human rights. But it is well established that Bonhoeffer’s concern for Jews was mainly restricted to his concern that Christian Jews be allowed to participate equally with others in the Christian community. Jews were to be accepted so long as they converted to Christianity and were baptised.

In hitching his political wagon to Bonhoeffer, Rudd should remember that Bonhoeffer was a theologian and minister of religion, concerned with the interests of his church and its survival under the Nazi regime. His growing awareness of the plight of the Jews was a political one. The desire to end the rule of Hitler was certainly inspired by his Bible-based humanitarian concerns, but these concerns were also inspired in others by other religious and humanist principles. His religious beliefs did not have a monopoly on such principles.

Like many others, Rudd unduly credits his brand of Christianity with a humanitarianism that is common across many diverse philosophies and beliefs.

Rudd then adopts a political slant on religion, accepting only those Christians with whom he agrees. Even some Christian groups, namely “right-wing” groups citing “family values” are rejected. Thus we have an acceptance of Christian involvement in politics that suits Rudd’s particular views.

The Prime Minister is also on shaky ground when he attributes the saving of Jews to Bonhoeffer. In fact Bonhoeffer’s religious beliefs led him concentrate on converting Jews to Christianity. His political concerns were as a Christian, rejecting the excesses of the Nazi regime, regardless of to whom they applied.

The Commission for the Designation of the Righteous among the Nations, a public committee appointed by the Yad Vashem Directorate (the "Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority"), Israel's official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, chaired by a Supreme Court Justice and made up of lawyers, historians, Holocaust survivors and private citizens, considered Bonhoeffer’s pro-Jewish activities. The Committee grants the title of “Righteous Among Gentiles” to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews. It found that Bonhoeffer did not save any Jews, never spoke out publicly against the persecution of Jews, and had not publicly retracted his justification “of the persecution of Jews from a theological perspective, explaining that it would never stop until the Jews asked for forgiveness for the crucifixion of Jesus an accept Christianity as their faith”.

Rudd goes on to discuss Bonhoeffer’s opposition to the atrocities of Nazism as a “political theology”. He does not explain how this mixture of politics and theology is relevant to practical politics, again demonstrating confusion about the relationship of religion, church and state. He told Stephen Crittenden, in the ABC Religion Report (mentioned above) that there is a separation of church and state in Australia, because there is no established church in this country. This is also the view of former Prime Minister John Howard. This view is wrong, both legally and, I would argue, in practice. The High Court of Australia has specifically recognised that there is not a constitutional separation of church and state in Australia.

Rudd appears to imply that “religion” equals “Christianity” equals “truth”, and is the sole source of “true” values. This elitist approach ignores the many other religious and secular bodies that exercise the values Rudd espouses, without the “Christianity”.

Indeed, the very organ that resulted from the atrocities of World War II, the United Nations, whose mission is the promotion of human rights and social well-being for all, is a secular body, as are, for example, the Red Cross/Crescent, Amnesty International, Médecins sans Frontières, and many other aid bodies.

Humanitarianism does not stem solely from Christian, or any other religious belief. It stems also from acceptance of justice as fairness, based on the principles that those operating from behind a “veil of ignorance”, as described above, would accept as fair and reasonable for all.

While differing beliefs are a feature of human life, I believe Rawls would say there is no need for Christian or any other religious belief to inform governance of the sort of society Rudd envisages. Indeed, public reason can also prevent the excesses of religious fundamentalism. Principles underlying theoretical Christianity, such as care for the vulnerable and oppressed, freedom of belief, speech and assembly, are contained within Rawls’s concept of the just and fair liberal democracy. These principles are expressed in the international human rights documents.

If Rudd is to convince those of us who are not like-minded Christians that he understands the need as a political leader to ensure equal consideration for the free holding and expression of diverse beliefs, religious or secular, he may well render unto Bonhoeffer’s memory the regard he does, but he would be better served for political inspiration to consider political theorists such as Rawls, who offer a more impartial and politically durable model of justice as fairness for everyone, which recognises, as a matter of principle, that Parliament is not a church.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Meg Wallace is the President of the Rationalist Society of NSW. She is a lawyer and former academic.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Meg Wallace

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Meg Wallace
Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy