God and Government
Currently the Australian Democrats, a minority political party in Australia, are running a survey titled God and Government. Jonathan Field wrote this response, in which he makes some good points about politics and Christianity. I asked if I could use it as a guest post, and he agreed. Thanks Jonathan! I know Jonathan mainly through the internet, but we have met once! He lives in Melbourne, Victoria.
I just got back from the USA where I studied the separation of church and state (amongst other things). Most of the "founding fathers" of the USA were Christians who unashamedly used their Christian perspective to shape their newborn nation's laws. These are the same people who had already decided there would be a "separation of church and state". In other words, whatever they _did_ mean by "separation of church and state", they did _not_ mean that politicians should divorce themselves from their personal religions beliefs. In fact, they _expected_ and _intended_ that parliamentarians would vote according to conscience/religion at times, and they expected and intended that the American people would choose, by their vote, which set of philosophies/beliefs would make their laws.
In Australia, MPs should make whatever laws they believe are best for our nation. Whatever their religious or philosophical persuasions, MPs should seek the betterment of the people of our country. An MP who is convinced by his religious beliefs that one law or another is bad for the people of our great land, should vote against such a law.
The people of Australia are responsible for keeping the MPs in check. We the citizens cast the votes that determine which philosophies dominate parliament. If we strongly disagree with an MP's agenda, we vote for another candidate who seems more suitable.
If enough Australians vote for enough MPs of similar philosophy/religion, that philosophy/religion will increasingly find expression in the laws of the land.
If enough Australians voted in enough MPs with some weird philosophy - e.g. that all persons born on 29th February are dangerous and must be executed - then, to the detriment of our nation, that bodgy philosophy would eventually find itself enshrined in law, and the death of innocents would ensue. In a purely democratic state, the only protection against such absurdity is the will of the people, reflected in their vote.
In short :
1) MPs should vote as they see best for Australia. If, for example, they have a religious basis for believing that rape is wrong, they should not hesitate to legislate against rape. The fact that their views are shaped by religion is irrelevant. If the Australian public disagree with the laws that an MP's philosophical or religion persuasions promote, they simply vote for another MP.
2) The Australian public should vote for whom they see fit to best lead Australia. They should not do so just because an MP claims to be affiliated with one or another religion. But it will so happen that those with similar religio/philosophical beliefs will have a similar view of what is best for Australia. (Decriminalise rape? Decriminalise cocaine? Allow abortion?) When an Australian citizen finds an MP who's ideas of what's best for Australia are similar to that citizen's own ideas, the citizen should unashamedly and without hesitation vote for that MP. And so on the one hand a voter should not vote for someone just because that person claims to be of the same or similar religion, but on the other hand a voter should not _refrain_ from voting for someone just because they _are_ of the same religion.
Jonathan sent this in as a comment on the survey. Good on you for taking the time, Jonathan! In the email in which his comment was contained, he also added the following:
"there is such a thing as legislation without an underpinning religious philosophy. Humanism is a religion. It's mantra "There is no God but man" sounds suspiciously like Islam's own "There is no God but Allah", and it's dogmatic assertion that "We are scientific - those who disagree are simply unscientific and religious", translated into plain English, is simply the Humanist's way of saying "Ours is the only true religion".
Should MPs divorce themselves from their religious beliefs when legislating? The very idea is absurd. That murder, rape, or child molestation is "wrong" is an inherently religious idea. Whether you claim it to be so because the majority believes it to be so (in which case your God is Man or Mother Nature), or whether you claim it to be so because there is a separate god or gods of some kind - in either case, the ideas are inherently religious, stemming out from one's understanding of the nature of reality and the origin and purpose of the universe generally and of humankind specifically.
We need to raise our voices more strategically, more frequently, more voluminously, and help reshape the philosophy of this nation."
