Politics. Religion. Combine the two and the result can be very nasty indeed. Think about a short list: the Crusades, the Inquisition, New York and the twin towers, the Holocaust, massacre of the Huguenots. It appears that when Church and State are combined into one, horrific things can happen.
Democracies usually separate religion and politics. The 1st Amendment to the American Constitution is absolutely clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This has been interpreted firmly by the Supreme Court, including banning prayers in public schools and state aid to religious schools.
The United Kingdom does have an Established Church, and a requirement that the Monarch must be a member of it. The Australian Constitution, however, (S. 116) states that “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance …” .
The separation of religion from politics is a formal, and often constitutional statement. But in practical politics, religion (or denomination) does play a role. Political parties sometimes decide that a conscience vote should be available to its members. Such cases usually involve divisive social issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.
The conscience vote is a device to protect the party from internal division. Members with strong religious beliefs will not follow a party line if it offends those beliefs. But there is an issue of representation involved. If the majority of the member’s electorate support, for example, euthanasia, should the member vote on his or her conscience, or on the basis of the conscience of the majority?
In this sense, religion does play a part in Australian politics. But, in terms of law, politics and religion are separated. Australia is a secular polity, where laws are made and applied in an environment which is not subject to, nor bound by, any religion or religious rule. That is, Australia is a democracy.
The opposite is a theocracy. This is a form of government in which the law-makers claim to act on behalf of a deity, and where religious laws are the direct source of political obligations. One of the most obvious in the modern world was Calvin’s rule in Geneva during the Reformation. But there have been plenty of others.
A recent statement to a Commonwealth parliamentary committee by a senior Moslem cleric raised the issue of politics and religion in Australian law. He put the opinion that Australia should accept and include Sharia law. That is, law which is made in accord with the Moslem religion, based on an interpretation of the Koran.
His argument was a clever one. Australia has a commitment to multiculturalism. To Moslems, Sharia law is part of their culture. It follows, according to his argument, that if Australia is committed to multiculturalism, it should, by definition, be committed to Sharia law.
The Commonwealth government announced immediately that it rejected the proposal, and correctly so. The incorporation of Sharia law, or any other system of law which is fundamentally based on a religion, would offend the Constitution, offend the principles on which our secular society is based, and introduce elements of a theocracy to our way of life.
Moslems, as any other religion in Australia, have a right to exercise their religion as they wish. They can arrange and manage their personal lives in accord with their own conception of their god and his or her precepts.
But when this comes into conflict with the basic principles of Australian lawmaking and laws, rule by a religion should not be tolerated.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented