fading separation between church and state

8/3/2019 Fading Separation Between Church and State

1/6

Australia's fading separation between church and state

Leslie Cannold ABC Religion and Ethics 13 May 2011While some see this as a failure, others protest. They say that it is not that Australia doesn'tdo secularism, it's just that we do it differently. Not worse, not better, just differently to how

it's done in the United States or in France.

These folks say that rather than bar religion from the public square, Australia has an inclusiveapproach that delivers religious freedom, religious fairness and state neutrality with regard toreligion by allowing all faiths equal access to the public square. Those of no faith, as is usualwith such things, are rarely mentioned.

My response to this is to say, well, if that is true - if Australia does the secular state in aunique and inclusive manner - then this approach is fatally flawed and has proved to be amiserable failure. A miserable failure.

An inclusive approach to the secular state is an inherently flawed approach, doomed tofailure. Having examined this concept from every angle, held it up to the light, examinedevery possibility - sound like someone we know? - I struggle to see how it could ever work.

This is because whatever the denomination, a fundamentalist approach to religious texts andtruths makes one intolerant and disrespectful of difference. There are always fundamentalists,and they are always intolerant and disrespectful of difference. Why? Because they believethey have sole access to the truth and, by virtue of this, that those who disagree with them are

just plain wrong.

To give you a feel for what such intolerance looks like and leads to, here's a quote from therecently released report by the Australian Human Rights Commission onFreedom ofReligion and Belief in 21st Century Australia. The quote is from the Gospel Assembly ofMelbourne. The Gospel Assembly told the study's authors that:

"The Australian government is obligated to respect the Christian religion as its first and

foremost responsibility. We object to the idea that other religions are equal to the worship of

Almighty God."

This quote doesn't just show us what intolerance looks like, it points to where it leads. Whereit leads, as the Assembly makes clear, is to a view that because the Assembly's Christian

worldview is correct, this view and the policy prescriptions that fall out of it, shouldrightfully be privileged above all others in the community.

Indeed, so right are they that they should be enshrined in laws that govern all of us, eventhose who are not members of the Christian flock, or any religious flock at all. Oops, theregoes the secular state.

Now, having once been an undergraduate student of psychology, I am aware that those whoare truly confident of their truths don't necessarily feel compelled to put their views intoforms that command others not compelled by them must obey. However, for those who lacksuch confidence, there is a compulsion to proselytize.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.htmlhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.htmlhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.htmlhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.htmlhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.htmlhttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.html


2/6

This is because converting others provides external proof of the truth of one's case (as in,"Look how many people agree with me. I must be right!"). Thus, for the fundamentalist whois intolerant by brand and insecure by nature, the tolerant and inclusive multi-faith space isone they are compelled to colonise as a means to their own end - and in the process, ofcourse, devour secularism.

An example of this with which we are all familiar is the misuse by Muslim jihadists of thefreedom of speech and religious tolerance found in western democracies to spread their ownviolently intolerant ideologies.

My point here is not to suggest that this modus operandi is not morally repugnant and a realcause for alarm - though it is - but to point out that in Australia the risks it poses emanateprimarily from evangelical Christian fundamentalists, not jihadist Muslims.

So now that we've looked at the inherent problems with any sort of inclusive Australianapproach to the secular state, I want to turn to the consequences of this approach. To ask, ifwhat we've got is an inclusive secular state, how it's working?

I want to look at two programs currently running in Australian government schools that thefounding fathers intended to be - and, indeed, are still believed to be - free, compulsory andsecular by nature. Those two programs are Special Religious Education (SRE or "Scriptureclasses") and School Chaplaincy.

In Victoria, 319,305 children attend scripture classes. The law requires these to be deliveredby volunteers, 96% of whom are provided by ACCESS Ministries. ACCESS is an umbrellagroup representing 12 Christian denominations, including the Anglicans Church of Australia,Uniting Church, Lutheran Church of Australia and the Salvation Army.

Parents of prep children are deliberately not informed that their school is compelled to allowaccess to their children to any SRE provider that demands it, nor are they even necessarilytold SRE will be a regular part of their child's school week and that they have the right to opttheir children out.

Should the process fail to deliver these key understandings - a process that is an insult toinformed consent and the zealously-guarded right of the religious to have choice and controlover their own children's education - their five year old will wind up on a Christian scriptureclass by default.

This, as I said, is something they may not become aware of until Jenny arrives home

swearing that God loves her more than mummy or, as a Twitter follower from Victoriareported, that it rains when God is angry.

ACCESS Ministries is the only Victoria SRE provider that receives government funding.Indeed, only a few weeks ago the Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon lobbed anadditional $200,000 of taxpayer funds at ACCESS to improve volunteer training. This was ontop of the more than $516,000 they already get from taxpayers, and a funding decision aboutwhich a Buddhist community leader, interviewed by The Age'sMichael Bachelardcomplained bitterly.

The Buddhists provide scripture teachers to just 14 Victorian schools. Because they don't getgovernment funding, they simply cannot afford to do more. Said Dr Sue Smith, "There isdefinitely a funding bias. Ours is funded by volunteers and donations.''
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/anger-at-schools-christian-bias-20110409-1d8kw.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/anger-at-schools-christian-bias-20110409-1d8kw.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/anger-at-schools-christian-bias-20110409-1d8kw.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/anger-at-schools-christian-bias-20110409-1d8kw.html


3/6

Children whose parents opt them out either because they have no faith, are of a minority faithnot able to be catered for, or who are appalled at the ACCESS curricula, experiencediscrimination. Separated from their classmates to endure enforced idleness - the educationdepartment guidelines forbid any secular instruction to be offered when SRE classes are on -young children can understand the sorting process as punishment.

This is particularly the case when they are placed outside of the principal's office, by thephotocopying machine for what we are told are supervisory purposes.

Now one defence to those prosecuting the "Australia-does-secularism-differently" argumentmight be that while kids are admittedly being corralled into Christian SRE classes deliveredby ACCESS Ministries volunteers, that's OK. Why?Because the ACCESS curriculum isinclusive and tolerant.It teaches about all of the world's religions and that's somethingimportant for kids to understand so they can develop tolerance.

I couldn't agree more. General Religious Education is a terrific thing, but sadly GeneralReligious Education is something entirely different to what ACCESS and other volunteers are

delivering in the Special Religious Education spot. What ACCESS is doing is instructing kidsin the beliefs and practices of a particular religion. In fact, the ACCESS curriculum is verymuch in line with their mission statement, which reads as follows:

"Our vision is to reach every student in Victoria with the Gospel. Join the vision and help us

transform this nation for God."

This mission statement is similar to that of the other major SRE teacher provider, ScriptureUnion, which describes itself as, "Christ's ambassadors on the front line of ministry."

On the score card for inclusive secularism in action, Australia's record on SRE suggests we

deserve a big fat goose egg. Does School Chaplaincy do any better?

School chaplaincy has been generously funded by the Federal government since the days ofJohn Howard. Rudd and then Gillard have since fallen over themselves - the latter even pre-empting the findings of a much-needed review of the program - to shower chaplaincy serviceproviders with funds (by rough estimates, $437 million worth).

On might argue that the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) shows that all is wellwith Australia's special brand of inclusive secularism because theoretically religious folk ofall persuasions, not just Christians, can serve in the role.

However, the notion of inclusiveness becomes problematic when you realise that - in whatappears to be a clear violation of the prohibitions on religious tests for jobs found in section116 of the constitution - a person of no faith cannot serve as a school chaplain.

Further, the reality of the chaplaincy program - how it's administered, funded and the facts onthe ground - conclusively demonstrate its failure to deliver any of the key promises of thesecular state. No religious freedom. No religious fairness. No state neutrality with regard toreligion.

Why is this so? Because, possibility aside, the reality is that 98% of Australian chaplains areChristians - a figure that matches up poorly with the 62% of Australians who identifythemselves as such. And, as we saw with SRE, these not your garden-variety Christians, but
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/14/3191013.htm


4/6

the crusading fundamentalist sort provided by - you guessed it - ACCESS Ministries andScripture Union.

Both ACCESS and Scripture Union are clear that they see chaplaincy as a means by whichthey can fulfil their mission to - and here I'm quoting Scripture Union - "make God's GoodNews known to children [and] young people" so "they may come to personal faith in ourLord Jesus Christ ... and become ... committed church members."

That chaplains are all about bringing lost Christian and non-Christian lambs into theevangelical fold is also suggested by the fact that three-quarters of the NSCP funds are spentin secular state schools.

Indeed, while chaplains are officially prohibited from proselytising or counselling children, aBackground Briefingreport provides clear evidence that some of them do. It also showedthat, despite having no qualifications to counsel anyone - much less children with eatingdisorders, substance abuse problems, who are suffering physical or mental abuse, caring for aparent with disabilities or at risk of suicide - some chaplains get stuck-in anyway. In addition,

most chaplains fail to refer when - as is nearly always the case - they are out of their depth.

Such problems are not to be dismissed as mere "teething problems," nor can they simply beovercome by better guidelines or training. They are a reflection of the inherent contractionresulting from the placement of individuals into pastoral care roles who have no qualificationin anything other than evangelical Christianity. Indeed, if it is true (as the NSCP's defendersclaim) that chaplains provide a much-needed listening ear, or knee bandaging and sausage-sizzling services, why must one be a person of faith to qualify for the role?

With chaplains, opt-out is impossible, rather than simply complex and convoluted as is thecase with SRE. This is because a school chaplain is free to roam an entire school, and to

interact with children of whatever age whenever, wherever and however s/he wants.

This places parents who know about the chaplain - and many don't - and wish to restricthis/her access to their child - and some do - in an invidious position. Invidious because toachieve this would require banning their children from participating in crazy hair day wherethe gold coin goes to Scripture Union, from attending morning assembly where the chaplaindoes a rap about how much more trustworthy he is compared to the other teachers, from theschoolyard at lunchtime and recess where the chaplain organizes games or a sausage sizzle,and from school camps on which the chaplain tags along.

That all of this is happening in a compulsory school system in which non-religious

alternatives in the private sector are as rare as hen's teeth - even if they could be afforded bythose currently sending their kids to public school - means that, again, on the score card forinclusive secularism in action, Australia gets a zero.

We're not doing secularism differently; we're doing it badly. What we are doing - as the SREand NSCP examples show - is allowing the already grey line between church and state to beoverrun time and time again by a rapacious, crusading, intolerant majority, and to do so to thedetriment of those we love the most and to whom we owe the most sacred duty of care: ourchildren.

So how are we going to fight back?
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3183516.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3183516.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3183516.htm


5/6

Already fights on several fronts are up and running. Ron Williams is leading the charge, withgreat minds including Max Wallace behind him, in the High Court Challenge to the NationalSchool Chaplaincy Program. There is also a case before the Victorian Equal Opportunity andHuman Rights Commission by three parents claiming special religious education isdiscriminatory.

These are great initiatives, but they are not enough. We need to inform the community andget them involved through the web in the lobbying of our political leaders for change.

To do this, my observation of those advocating for secularism is not that they need to workharder, but that they need to work smarter. To work smarter not just when it comes totechnology, but when working with one another, and building coalitions with those who aredifferent, but share an interest in defending a secular state.

The most important thing to make that happen is to want to win. Humanist, atheist andsecular organizations can exist for a number of reasons - birds of feather liking to socializetogether, to ensure visibility, etc. However, only groups that have a clear, discrete and

realistic political agenda that they want to achieve more than anything have any chance ofprevailing.

I say this from experience. I was part of coalition of many groups and individuals thatmanaged to change Victoria's law on abortion. Since the late 1800s, it had been defining thereproductive choices of Victorian women as crimes worthy of jail. But we did it and the waywe did it was to work in coalition.

When I say coalition, I mean thousands of individuals, dozens of groups that sometimes hadhistory with one another and often disagreed. Many of us knew each other and, as is the waywith such things, we didn't always get along. But that abortion needed to be removed from

the Crimes Act now was the one thing we were all passionate about, and agreed that it shouldbe the focus of our activism.

Former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner told us that in all her years of observing and being partof community campaigns she had never seen one work as effectively or as collaboratively asthe one to decriminalize abortion. This was because everyone involved - everyone - put theiregos, their grievances, their personal dislikes, their pursuit of their own organisation'sinterests (including being named and noted for their role in the effort), to one side.

Instead, we were generous with one another, worked together productively come hell or highwater - at times stepping in, at others shutting up and getting out of the way - to achieve our

shared goal of making the lives of Victorian women better by changing the law.

Australian secularists can do this, and must do this, in order to change things on the SRE andNSCP front for our children, and for all the young people in this state.

Many of the founders of secularism were religious. Indeed, back in the days when unbeliefalmost certainly existed but was not mentioned in polite company, it was often religiousminorities afraid of being overrun by the majority who fought for a secular system ofgovernment that would give them religious freedom and protect them religiousdiscrimination.

When I was growing up, it was the Jews in my town who fought the yearly attempt byChristians to erect a nativity scene in the town square at Christmas time.


6/6

We need to remember this and to understand that we cannot win and will not win until westop saying or insinuating that atheists, humanists or are the only ones who came up with thesecular concept. Or that atheists, humanists or rationalist are the only ones able or willing todefend it.

Atheism is a personal belief system. Humanism is a philosophy. Rationalism is anepistemology or theory. Secularism is a form of governance designed to ensure thatAustralians of every and of no faith are free to live their lives and to raise their children inaccordance with their beliefs, and to not miss out on life's opportunities because of theirpersonal faith.

Who can, does and should support a secular state? Fair-minded Australians of all faiths andof none, that's who.

I want to end with a quote from an editorial in The Age about what the secular agenda when itcomes to children is all about, which - in a nutshell - is about getting trained professionaleducators to provide our kids with general religious education:

"The solution is not to abandon education about religion; events of the past decade illustrate

the dangers of religious ignorance and intolerance. However, the government should not rely

on faith-driven volunteers instead of trained educators who teach to the same professional

standards as in any other subject. The goal must not be to convert children but to ensure they

have the general religious literacy they need to make sense of the past, present and future."

We all owe where we arrive to where we have come from. When the Abortion Law ReformBill passed through the Senate in October 2009 and became law, we were ecstatic. Rightlywe gave thanks to the cross-party band of MPs who had made the bill's passage, with not asingle amendment, possible.

I will never forget what Liberal Senator Andrea Coote said to me when I thanked her. Shesaid, "Leslie, this has been a marathon. You women in the community have been running thisrace for a long time. We just took the baton and ran the final lap."

Most of the people in this room have been striving to secure a secular state for a long time. Ihave little doubt that eventually we will prevail in this struggle. And when we do it won'tmatter who is actually gripping the baton in their fist. The victory will be a collective one, inpart owed to the hard work and persistence of all of you.

Leslie Cannold is a medical ethicist and the President of Reproductive Choice Australia and

Pro-choice Victoria. She is the author ofThe Abortion Myth: Feminism, Morality, and theHard Choices Women Make(2001) andWhat, No Baby? Why Women are Losing the

Freedom to Mother, and How They Can Get It Back(2005). Her first novel,The Book of

Rachael, was published in March. This is an edited transcript of the speech she delivered to

the Convention of the The Council of Australian Humanist Societies on 30 April 2011. She

was accepting the 2011 Australian Humanist of the Year Award. Previous winners include

Fred Hollows, Tim Flannery, Phillip Adams, Eva Cox, Donald Horne, Henry Reynolds, Inga

Clendinnen, Peter Cundall, Peter Singer, Bob Brown and Julian Burnside.
http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2005-what-no-baby/http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/http://www.cannold.com/books/2003-abortion-myth/

fading separation between church and state

Documents