While religion and politics have never made good dinner party conversation, they do tend to crop up as leading topics in the burgeoning LGBT debate.
It’s hardly a surprise since there has been no greater opposition to homosexuality and gender diversity than the behemoth machine of organised religion.
Meanwhile, government has generally been the proverbial brick wall halting the progress of LGBT rights.
Even in ancient Athens, the widely-recognised cradle of western civilisation, theology was heavily strewn throughout the legislative system.
And since the birth of democracy; much of the world’s political institutions still rest on some religious foundations.
Australia promotes itself as a secular nation yet religious undertones are rife throughout our governmental system.
Perhaps the starkest reminder is the use of the Lord’s Prayer.
When the Australian Parliament goes into session during the year, parliamentarians begin each day by reciting the Lord’s Prayer before delving into debate.
For over a century now, Australia’s parliamentary representatives have been asking for the Lord’s forgiveness from their trespasses; yet it has been only two years since we asked for forgiveness from this land’s original owners.
Although these are just linguistic formalities from an age-old tradition, one may be a little concerned when the highest echelons of policy makers are pledging ‘thy will be done’ to the church each time it goes to session.
It was only 16 years ago that new nationals to Australia were forced to pledge their allegiance to God in their citizenship pledge.
These days, our incoming residents have the choice between two oaths: one that still vows under God and the other which doesn’t.
Australia had its chance for greater secular sovereignty just over a decade ago in the largest proposed upheaval of our constitution since 1901: the 1999 Referendum.
When almost 55 per cent of Australians voted ‘no’ to a republic, Australia relinquished its opportunity to reform its some-what outdated constitution.
Instead, Australians voted to treasure the ties to the British Monarchy; a monarch established for their blue blood or more historically acknowledged as the earthbound representatives of God.
Last year, the Australian Journal of Political Science published a study that found politicians had doubled their use of Christian terms in political speeches between 2000 and 2006.
In 2009, political commentator Anna Crabb said while the increase in religious terminology didn’t necessarily affect policy decisions; there was evidence to support it.
Take for example the same-sex marriage ban in 2004 by former Prime Minister John Howard.
When Howard instituted the ban on same-sex marriage, he insisted it was linked to the nation’s history of marriage.
In spite of this secular reasoning, religious values eventually leeched into his argument while he was speaking about the marriage equality issue.
‘That’s the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions,’ he told the ABC in 2005.
While the Liberal Party created the ban on same-sex marriage, the current government has blatantly refused to amend the law, drawing the same battle lines as the former government.
In a testament to the importance of the Christian vote, former PM Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott addressed an Australian Christian Lobby conference held last month.
While Abbott humoured that Jesus was not a member of any political parties, both still agreed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Little policy change is expected after last month’s changing of the guard, however new PM Julia Gillard asserted to the ABC late last month that she did not believe in God and had no pretence in pretending to.
On the opposite end of the secular spectrum, other countries have taken a strong stance against any religious affiliation.
France is currently fighting an entirely different philosophical battle as it strives to eradicate any religious paraphernalia from public life.
The debate on banning the burqa in public is currently raging across the nation as the new draft legislation is set to go before the parliament this month.
France has instituted bans on other religious symbols such as wearing a cross or Star of David in schools.
Despite fierce objection from the Muslim community, women’s rights and human rights groups, the government has soldiered on with the controversial legislation in the name of secularism.
Spain’s government recently spoke out about following suit with the French and introducing their own ban on displaying religious symbols like the burqa and crosses.
Back in Australia, calls for greater separation between politics and religion has been growing and Australians are taking notice.
President of Australia’s Secular Party John Perkins said the moral guidance obtainable from religion isn’t relevant to the 21st century.
‘Religion intrudes too much into current politics… most people think we live in a much more secular state than we actually do,’ Perkins said.
In regards to the ETS, Perkins said, ‘when a politician like Tony Abbott doesn’t believe that climate change is real and that it was warmer in Jesus’ time, what is really driving a politician’s views?’
‘What we need is more rationale-based policy making.’
Benn Dorrington
***
