As we reminisce about the parting of ways from our former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, we can’t help but think of the tremendous damage he brought upon the nation because of his beliefs and in particular, his religious ones. He may have said during press meetings that he acknowledges that everyone can have their own beliefs which we are all apparently entitled to, but in private and the numerous times in public, he didn’t seem to really stick to that sentiment.
This combined with the start of a new age with our supposed new King, Charles who is our new Head of State and Head of the Church of England, perhaps we need to look at how we as a nation should demand and expect a more distinct separation between the church and the state.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that in the 2021 census, the number of people reporting as Christian was 43.9%, whereas those reporting as No Religion or Secular was 38.9%. This has risen from 2016 where Christianity was at 52.1% and No religion was 30.1%. Again reflecting on 2011 census data we see Christianity at 61.1% and No religion at 23.1%. It does not take a math genius to tell that those who take a more secular view and see religion as not being relevant to them is rising rapidly. Surely if religion is taking more of a back-seat, as it is argued that in the 21st Century it should, that religious ideals and foundations for Australian politics are not only no longer in demand but should have no place in a more secular humanist political landscape but also a more pluralistic cultural perspective. It is not the Dark Ages anymore, and if Australia wants to grow up and emancipate itself from such religious-oriented politics which have continued to hold it back, we need to have a say and tell politicians to grow up and bring Australia into the modern world.
One such fine example of religious thought holding us back, and in particular Scott Morrison’s own philosophical approach, is climate change. Not only was the anti-science stance behind the religious approach painfully obvious when it comes to climate change, but it applied to other matters too. Christians tend to overlook, or be apathetic, to climate change because according to their holy book, their Saviour is coming back Real Soon and with him will come a cleansing of the world, and an Earth renewed. If Earth is being renewed, why would they care about the condition of the world as it is now, or how worse it will get? Some Christians see themselves as stewards meant to take care and look after the world before their Saviour returns but many others don’t and couldn’t care less about the environment. It’s like looking after the appearance and structural integrity of an ageing building that is rumoured to be demolished sometime soon, only no-one can tell when it is supposed to happen other than “sometime in the future”, they can’t get in touch with the construction company to get a rough timeframe and everyone else can only recall the apparent rumours and that it’s “on the list”.
Another matter involving science and religion clashing most severely is in the area of stem cell research, more accurately called embryonic stem cell research. Australia’s Anglican Church joined the Roman Catholic Church in their disapproval of research into stem cells and the various methods to which they can be retrieved with many arguing the differences between conception and fertilisation with differences of opinion as to when “life” initially starts all the way to conceding that umbilical chords plus brain and bone marrow from adults may be acceptable sources. Muslims also were split on the matter saying that as long as the purpose was not for reproductive cloning, they would cautiously accept it, so long as the sources of the stem cells were retrieved during the “pre-ensoulment” stage. Jewish organisations shared sentiment with Muslim organisations in that stem cell research was permitted for therapeutic purposes but not for cloning purposes.
This causes a rift between those arguing for the “soul” of a human being and when it is supposed to enter the body, and those who seek the medical advances it could bring for secular humanist reasons, such as when the late actor Christopher Reeve visited Australia in order to promote stem cell research to the general public and was met was resistance, primarily from the religious groups. Even if the source of the stem cells may be from miscarriages, abortions or umbilical chords, if the human donor was willing for humanitarian purposes to allow transplant of the necessary biological material to be used to help their fellow humans, religious sects still have too much say in what we can do in an overwhelming secular society by free thinking individuals towards humanitarian endeavours. Some religious sects are still against vaccines and blood transfusions, but at least those numbers are slowly dwindling.
Medical science and climate change are not the only victims to fall prey to religious right-wing organisations with too much influence but parliamentary procedures as well. With the strong likelihood of the next census showing more of No Religion adherents than those of religious persuasion, does it not seem a bit of an anachronism and irrelevant in our modern society to open parliament every session with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer? I won’t patronise the reader by appealing to the sensitive beliefs of other religions but rather just state that in democratic society with a more secular population, would it not be better to do away with the opening prayer instead and use that time for actual productive activities?
At the beginning of each day when the session starts in the Senate and the House of Representatives, prayers are read. This is done because a part of the Senate and House includes the Standing Orders. The session begins with the acknowledgement of Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples and then immediately proceeds to an appeal to the Christian God for a blessing then a full rendition of the Lord’s Prayer. The only time this is not done is on the first day of a new Parliament or due to a death or resignation, a new Speaker is elected. Even though it is occasionally stressed that it is purely voluntary for attendees to recite, what purpose does it suit in an increasingly secular society? Or, what if a Jewish prayer were demanded, or a Muslim prayer? With the orthodox Jewish prayer starting with a thank you to the deity for not making the appellant a “Gentile or a woman”, or the Muslim needing to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca, it would make for an awkward session for those in attendance. Surely eliminating it altogether, not just as a show of courtesy for our increasingly pluralistic society but also to more accurately reflect our modern society. It is time to emancipate our country from out of date beliefs.
This is not just done in parliament house either, but all 8 states and territories indulge in this recitation, with Hume City of Victoria engaging in an interfaith prayer with the only enlightened region seemingly Mornington Peninsula Shire which passed a motion on 8th December 2020 to finally replace the prayer with a secular pledge. That’s progress of a kind.
So taking into account that our nation is slowly coming to terms with the fact that we are in a more modern, potentially more enlightened century and that our population becoming less religious and more secular and not needing to pretend to show favouritism due to a historical and cultural legacy, should we not demand that our politicians and our parliament be brought into the modern world and better reflect more modern, secular and humanistic ideals? Let us demand that politicians leave their religion at the entry door and base their future actions, decisions and policies on sound reason, scientific evidence, secular perspectives and to strive more for how we can all aim for human solidarity without superstitious bias clouding our judgement and trying to enact laws for a few minority and splinter groups in order to win votes. Our children and our future will thank you for it.