Creating a better Australia: reinventing secularism
By John L Perkins
While society has in many ways become more secular, the public
profile
of religion in society has seemingly also become more pronounced. As
the power of established religion apparently declines, there has been a
resurgence in diverse forms of religious expression. These
contradictory trends are just as evident in Australia as they are in
many other countries. They can be thought of as being the product
of multiculturalism and of multiple religions colliding with unresolved
global injustice. Dealing with the problems caused by these
contradictory tends will be one of the defining issues of the 21st
century. However attempting to identify the nature of these
problems presents a mass of contradictions, ones generally deriving
from those that are inherent in the nature of religious belief itself.
Possibly the greatest hurdle to be overcome is that the contradictions
within and between religions are not really considered to be
problems. We have become so accustomed to valuing cultural
diversity and its benefits that we have tended to assume that any
problems associated with the contradictions in cultural beliefs are
insignificant or non-existent. Implicitly, society has adopted a
form of philosophical relativism, where all cultural viewpoints are
considered to be equally valid. Much legislation that deals with
cultural issues, in Australia and elsewhere, makes this assumption,
which is generally held to be consistent with a liberal progressive
tradition. However a policy that assumes that contradictions are
not a problem, will itself become a problem if the problems caused by
ignoring the contradictions become more significant. This is
appears to be what is now happening.
With the secularist trend faltering amidst a religious resurgence, the
role of religion in society is increasingly becoming a political
issue. Broadly, the issue is becoming a policy choice between
secularism and its polar alternative: religionism. Creating a
better Australia will require effort in many directions, but the most
important may be in re-establishing secular values, particularly in
relation to education. The arguments may be difficult and
confronting, but they are ones that will inevitably have to be
addressed. This essay seeks to outline, from a humanist
perspective, the historical background to the issue, its increasing
importance, and the arguments for a revival of secularism.
The historical rise of secularism
The appropriate nature of the relationship between religion and the
state is an issue with a long history. Since ancient times,
superstition and religion have played a prominent role in political
affairs. Eventually, scientific discovery and the exposure of the
fraudulent nature of many religious claims helped give rise to the
Enlightenment and to secularism. After centuries of religious
warfare in Europe, secularism heralded a new era of scientific progress
and prosperity. Together with establishing political rights, the
implementation of secularism was a key feature of the late 18th century
revolutions in France and America. Central to these was the
thought that human beings could arrive at truth through reason and
could construct rational social institutions without the help of
religion. The separation of Church and State was seen as critical
in achieving this. Religion was to be protected from State
interference and the State was to be preserved from religious
domination. All would benefit from State impartiality with
respect to sectarian issues.
The situation in Britain differed somewhat, where a more a more
conservative attitude prevailed, in which the Church of England
remained the established State religion. Although the development
of political rights in a laissez faire climate allowed major conflict
over religion to be avoided, the Church maintained power over all
schools in Britain until well into the 19th century. A similar
structure was brought to Australia, where in the early 1800s, Anglican
clergy were funded by colonial governments to establish schools.
In 1831, funding for schools was split between the Anglican, Catholic
and Presbyterian Churches. In the 1850s however, the first
government schools were established. South Australia was the
first colony to abolish state aid to religion in 1851, followed by NSW
in 1865 and Victoria in 1870. Beginning in Victoria in 1871, each
colonial government during the 1870s passed legislation establishing
the principle that education should be “universal, secular and
free”. In this, in other innovations like women’s suffrage and
the secret ballot, and in social wages and benefits, Australia led the
world.
The principle of public secular education was maintained up until 1951,
when Federal government support for private schools first began to
emerge via allowable tax deductions. In 1963, The Menzies
government initiated specific grants to private schools, almost all of
which were religious schools. In 1973, the Whitlam
government institutionalised the Federal funding of private schools,
however only 30% of such funds were specified for allocation to
non-government schools. This commitment was abandoned by the
Hawke government, and the proportion of Federal funding to private
religious schools now exceeds 70 %. While education may still be
said to be universal, the idea that it be free and secular has been
thrown overboard. The entire secularist ideal has been severely
weakened by this.
When the Australian Constitution was written, like the US Constitution,
it included a provision regarding religion. Section 116 states in
part: “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for the establishment of
any religion, … or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,
…”. In Australia, “any religion” has been taken to mean “any
particular religion”, whereas in America, “religion” is seemingly
regarded as meaning “all religion”. There, government funding of
religion, including for religion in government schools and for private
religious schools is prohibited. Here, the interpretation has
been that as long as no particular religion is “established”, there is
little that the Constitution prohibits. The difference in
interpretations may partly reflect the different intentions of the
constitutional drafters. While in the US case there was indeed a
secularist purpose, described by Thomas Jefferson as providing a “wall
of separation” between Church and State, the climate of opinion in
Australia at the time was rather one of “anti-sectarian endorsement of
religion.”1
Although the wall of separation was never as clearly defined in
Australia as it was in the United States, it could certainly be argued
that the need for a non-sectarian consensus assisted secularism to
become established nevertheless. Especially in education,
secularism could be said to have been the standard of policy throughout
the 20th century. It is no accident that the role of religion in
education is considered an important issue. In terms of the
dichotomy between secularism and religionism, education is where the
battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation takes
place. Measures of increased secularisation, such as the
declining adherence to religion, and the declining church attendance in
the latter part of the 20th century may possibly be attributed to the
secularist educational climate of the earlier part of that
century. To the extent that the balance of the educational
climate has more recently shifted toward religionism, we may expect to
see the revival of religiosity in society, which already appears to be
underway.
The resurgence of religionism
While secularism and the separation of religion from state affairs is
still nominally considered an important principle, there does now
appear to a reversal of the long term secularist trend.
Religionism appears to be gaining ground at the expense of secularism,
in Australia and elsewhere. Perhaps paradoxically, this trend may
best be understood as a consequence of modernisation, multiculturalism
and globalisation, rather than as being in spite of these
phenomena. In many countries, more education has often meant more
religious education. This, together with greater injustice and
greater cultural diversity has opened greater possibilities for
cultural friction.
Such friction may be surprising and unanticipated because of the great
progress that has been made in banishing other forms of
prejudice. It is rightly considered that the development of
toleration, particularly with regard to the rights of minorities, has
been one of the most significant advances to be achieved over the last
century. In response to past persecution, religious and racial
tolerance has been successfully established as a means of redressing
past injustices. This has coincided however, over the last
century, with an increased prominence of religious political ideologies
such as Zionism and Islamism, which have also served to kindle a more
widespread sense of religious identification and cultural division.
Within the new climate of toleration in many countries including
Australia, multiculturalism, rather than secularism, has been advanced
as an alternative measure to counteract sectarianism. In
accordance with this process, the ideal of “full religious freedom” has
been perceived as the ideal. Religionism, or at least
multi-religionism, has emerged as something that is not merely condoned
by the state, but actively supported and encouraged. While all
States and Territories now have anti-discrimination legislation, these
laws all give exemptions to discrimination when practised in pursuit of
religious purposes. The intention of this, as commonly
expressed in legislation, is to “avoid injury to the religious
susceptibilities” of religious adherents.2
Further blanket protection of religious practices were suggested in
proposals for a Federal Religious Freedom Act. While this has not
been pursued, instead, in several State jurisdictions, what could be
regarded as undue criticism of religions has been prohibited by
religious vilification legislation.
It is within this context that the seismic shift in education away from
government schools in Australia and toward private religious schools
may best be viewed. Religions have been universally regarded as a
force for good, where seemingly, the more intensely religions are
observed, the more good is created. The nature of what may be
taught regarding religion has not generally been thought as something
that should be subject to prudential limitation. It has been
acknowledged and accepted that religious schools “seek to teach and to
promote the beliefs and values of the particular religion through the
whole ethos and life of the school - not merely in religious education
curriculum but in all curricula and all other activities”3.
The central role that religious education has in specialist religious
schools has never really been regarded as a problem. Private
schools in Australia are now amongst the most heavily government-funded
in the OECD but are the least accountable4.
With the advent of increasing numbers of Islamic schools, some with
militant Islamist leanings, the wisdom of this policy is now coming
into question. But it is not only the prospect of entrenching
division and disharmony amongst our future citizens that is of
concern. We seem to have overlooked some of the major
philosophical problems of extending multiculturalism into
multi-religionism. These involve an implicit endorsement of
postmodernist philosophy and moral relativism. Religions have
competing truth claims and competing moral claims. An official
endorsement of multiple religions implies tacit official endorsement of
the concept of multiple truths and multiple moralities.
Perceptions of reality are certainly socially constructed, but there
are universal truths and universal moral values that transcend cultures
and religions. Civilisation itself relies on respect for the fact
that there are singular truths, which are discernible by application of
reason and evidence. Regarding multiple religions, the idea of
multiple truths may be a convenient fiction, but it is not one that
governments should endorse.
In a multicultural world, it seems that this postmodernist departure
from rationality has clouded our view of what gave rise to modern
society in the first place – the application of scientific
method. As well as religion, or perhaps instead of it, many other
forms or superstition and pseudo-science have increased in popularity
as a result. While our own particular cultural myths may be
exposed as disappointing frauds, multiculturalism combined with modern
marketing methods elicits hope that the new-found myths of other
cultures may provide substitutes of significance. Such a false
“multiple truth” fantasy world is child-like, but the consequences are
far from child’s play. If those in free and open societies like
ours are not able to come to this realisation, there is little hope
that those living in societies that are more oppressed by religion will
be able to do so.
Freedom of thought
In a sense, it is not surprising that multiculturalism has led us down
this path. Most people are at least somewhat religious and want
to believe that their religions are beneficial for themselves and for
society. Through history, persecution of religious minorities has
often resulted in what would now be regarded as serious crimes against
humanity. Guaranteeing freedom of religion seems like the obvious
remedy to prevent repetition of any such iniquity. However an
individual’s entitlement to any express any right or freedom must
always be limited to the extent that it may infringe upon the rights of
others. Has society’s sanguine view of religion perhaps impaired
our judgement in this regard, particularly with respect to religious
education for children and their development of freedom of thought?
The source and inspiration of much legislation on rights and freedoms
and has come from international agreements and declarations.
Arising from these, it is widely believed that there is a UN defined
right for parents to prescribe a religious education of their choice
for their children – what may be called a "right to
indoctrinate". It seems somewhat improbable that such a right
should be declared, but there are indeed certain UN declarations that
may be interpreted as giving such a right to parents. Although
not unqualified, these refer to parties having "respect for the liberty
of parents ... to ensure the religious and moral education of their
children in conformity with their own convictions"5,
and the rights of a child “to have access to education in the matter of
religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents”6.
There are however many other statements that would seem to militate
against such a presumed right to indoctrinate, such as the need to
direct education to "the development of the child’s abilities … to
their fullest potential", to "strengthen respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms", to achieve desirable social outcomes, and in
particular the need to protect children against "all forms of
discrimination ... on the basis of the ... beliefs of the child's
parents..."7. In limiting freedom of thought to
within what is religiously prescribed, and in instilling possibly
divisive religious allegiances, the potential for infringement of these
rights arises. Thus, there is scope for alternative
interpretations of the seemingly contradictory declarations of such
rights, and of related legislation.
Included in many such documents is the declared right of "freedom of
thought, conscience and religion"8. Left unresolved
here is the seemingly obvious contradiction between freedom of thought
and conscience, on the one hand, and freedom of religion on the other,
especially if this freedom is assumed to encompass the right to
religiously indoctrinate children. Where there are conflicts, the right
to freedom of thought and conscience would appear to precede religious
rights, and the rights of the child would appear to precede those of
parents, although this is not something that appears to have attracted
legislative attention. There is however at least one legal case,
relevant in the European Union, where it has been determined that,
“when the right of the parents as regards their religious convictions
conflicts with, rather than supports, the right of the child to
education, the interests of the child take precedence”9.
All religious schools have as their objective, the promotion of the
idea that their own religion is true and correct, which necessarily
implies at least this degree of indoctrination. Hence in this sense, a
"right to indoctrinate" is widely believed to exist and is widely
practised in Australia. Does this situation conflict with our
obligation to protect the rights of children, does it meet our
educational objectives, and is it in the long term public interest? To
create a better Australia, we cannot continue, to ignore these
questions.
Even the most ardent religionist advocate would perhaps concede that
for most people, adherence to a particular religion is a matter of
socialisation rather than rational choice, that religions are based
more in faith than rationality, and that as history shows, religions
can be divisive. The National Goals for Schooling state, in part,
that schooling should develop the capacity of students “to make
rational and informed decisions about their own lives”, and that
outcomes should be “free from the negative forms of discrimination
based on sex, language, culture, ethnicity and religion.10”
Private schools in receipt of Federal funding are obliged to adhere to
these goals, yet religious schools, by their nature, would appear to
systematically violate them. Their acknowledged purpose is to
instil a form of socialisation at variance with the full development of
rational freedom of thought, while at the same time creating a sense of
sectarian allegiance likely to lead to future divisiveness and
discrimination.
The policy solution
We are at a turning point in history, where, regarding religion, a
long-term change of direction is required – in our perceptions, our
expectations and in our institutions. A postmodernist
interpretation of multiculturalism is no solution to the age-old
problem of religious conflict. Religions are now the major source
of global strife and instability. Whatever consoling and
charitable benefits religions may provide, these are now far outweighed
by the dangers and costs. The moral systems found outside
religions are often far superior to those found within them.
Rather than implicitly endorsing all religious as true, we need to
adopt the equally impartial but rational assumption – they are all
false. Wishful thinking, hope and faith form basis for religious
inspiration, but in the 21st century, these can have no part in
legislative and institutional framework of society.
We have become over-sensitive both in custom and in law, to “offending
religious susceptibilities”. Even if the truth, as best we are
able to determine it, offends, it should still have free expression,
religious susceptibilities notwithstanding. It is a paradox that
Mark Twain’s famous quip, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so”,
is seemingly a less acceptable social comment now, than it was a
hundred years ago. Yet it is more necessary and relevant now that
such statements be made. In a world prone to environmental and
high-tech disasters, postmodernist multiculturalism has helped to
reanimate pre-modern religious ideologies. It is not necessary
for us to deny our cultural heritage, but we must recognise its
mythological aspects. Each religion aspires to provide cultural
truths and cultural moralities that are asserted to be superior to
those of others. They thus inevitably engender an undesirable
notion of cultural supremacism, that only a universal secular approach
can overcome. We must reinvent secularism to counteract newly
rampant sectarianism.
In education, the policy implications may be profound, but are little
more than what “freethinkers” have long advocated – the promotion of
free thought, rather than religious indoctrination. To create a
better Australia, either government support for religious schools must
be phased out, or private schools must phase out their religious
associations, affiliations and curricula. This should start with
primary schools. As the founder of the Jesuits once said: “Give
me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man”.
Religionist proponents are well aware of the importance early childhood
indoctrination. It must be seen as our duty of care to children,
and in the long-term interests of an informed and harmonious society,
to prevent this from happening. Regarding primary schools in
particular, we should simply return to the 19th century ideal of them
being universal, secular and free. Secondary private schools
should perhaps be given a more extended period in which to make the
required adjustments. The newly emerging government support for
private religious universities should cease.
Religious tolerance is a valuable ideal and its widespread acceptance
is an achievement. Tolerance is, however, a limited form of
acceptance. It should not be extended to the acceptance of
falsehood, or to practices and customs that infringe basic rights, to
the detriment of the creation of a harmonious future society. We
already face looming long-term environmental and economic problems of
daunting severity. We have no need of compounding those problems
with others caused by religious and superstitious irrationality.
We need to endorse universal secular values that transcend religions,
such as those of compassion, honesty, freedom and justice.
Australia once led the world in its expression of these secular and
egalitarian values. We should reaffirm these values and re-ignite
this vision. In this way, we may create not only a better
Australia, but help create a better world.
Notes:
1. Report on Freedom of Religion and
Belief , Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade,
Parliament of Australia, 2002
2. See for example Section 3, the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, 1986, (Commonwealth).
3. Section 4.3, Article 18: Freedom of
Religion and Belief, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,
1998.
4. Section 2, Proposals for Improved
Accountability for Government Funding to Private Schools, Chris and
Terry Aulich, Australian Schools for Government Studies. Paper
commissioned by the Australian Education Union, Nov. 2003.
5. Article 13.3, International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dec. 1966.
6. Article 5.2, Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, 1981.
7. Articles 29.1 and 2.2, Convention on
Rights of the Child, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Nov 1989.
8. Article 18, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, United Nations, General Assembly, Dec. 1948.
9. European Union case law, right to
education Martins Casimiro and Cerveira Pereira v. Luxembourg, Court
decision of 27 April 1999. Refusal to waive the obligation to attend
Saturday school of a child whose parents are members of the Seventh Day
Adventist Church.
10. Goals 1.3 and 3.1, The Adelaide
Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty First
Century, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs, April 1999
Dr
John L Perkins is a Melbourne
economist and President of the Secular Party of Australia.
This paper is forthcoming in Australian
Humanist, and was a prize winning essay in the 2005 essay competition organised by the
Council of Australian Humanist Societies.