If freedom of religion is the question, secularism is the answer

This self-understanding is crucial to the current project. The researchers, the AHRC and the Government need to know Christians carry a very real belief that Jesus Christ stands above us all. He has our primary allegiance, which we will not change for anyone.

In similar vein, a Mr George Fryer posed a rhetorical question:

Who do we obey? God or Government? God given Holy writings or man-made Human Rights?

I invite you to re-read the two statements above replacing the word 'Christians' with 'Muslims', 'God' with 'Allah' and 'Jesus Christ' with 'Mohammed'. My aim in making this suggestion is to put Christians' paranoia about the militant imposition of Islam upon Australians into perspective. It is almost amusingly ironic that submissions from hard-line Christians endorse exactly the same kind of religious privilege and imposition they fear from Islamists. Pot, meet kettle!

To me, the greatest failure of the AHRC report on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century is the hesitancy to state the bleeding obvious. What should have been made clear is that the only way in which so many diverse voices and opinions can be equitably accommodated is through secular governance, secular public institutions and a clearly defined wall of separation between church and state. Importantly, this does not mean the exclusion of religious voices in government or in national debates. It does mean, however, that no single religion or denomination would be privileged above the other – or above the voices of those of no faith. As Barack Obama explained in his 'Call to Renewal' address on faith and politics:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason … this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible … but in a pluralist democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.

This provides cold comfort to those who believe Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in Australian society, but, ultimately, the only strategy which will defuse tensions, guarantee equity and provide long-term security and equal protection to all stake-holders – including Christians – is to defend and strengthen our system of secular government. Indeed, Christians may do well to consider that defending their current privilege in terms of their demographic representation may soon come back to bite them in the bum. It's all very well to have a government which panders to religion – as long as it's your religion; but that may not always be the case.

The AHRC report on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century would have been a far more useful document had it used the extraordinary diversity of opinions, escalating religious fears and tensions, statistics showing the sharp decline in religious adherence in Australia, and concerns about legislation to explain that a constitutional separation of religion and state combined with a renewed national commitment to secular government and public institutions is the best, in fact, the only way, to protect freedom of (and from) religion and belief in 21^st century Australia.