Parliament is not a church

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.