Religious School Freedoms - A Glance
There is a titanic cultural shift seeking to dislodge certain religious
freedoms and values that permeate Australian society. This article highlights
freedoms connected to Christian school practices. This contested shift is
playing out in diverse ways – in federal and State Parliaments, political
parties, school institutions, churches, to name some.
The implications go beyond these Christian institutions. This cultural
turn is awakening examination among some about what freedoms are threatened.
Some questions go to the crux:
- Do Christian parents have a
spiritual obligation and a right to raise their children in line with
their Christian teachings?
- Do Christian schools have a
right to run schools in line with their spiritual values and practices?
- Does any Australian
Government have a superior authority to put in place laws or
school-socialisation programs to foster in children beliefs about fluidity
in sexual and gender identities against wishes of some parents?
- Is it right and just for a
Government to put in place legislation forcing Christian school
institutions to employ any qualified teacher, even if the teacher does not
adhere to Christian ethos or school pastoral care practices?
- Does the Australian
Government hold a superior right to sanctions schools such as withdrawal
of funding subsidies where such schools are refusing to nurture diverse
sexual orientation in their school pastoral care practices?
These are just some of the concerns at the centre of religious freedom
battles in Australia. These cultural and spiritual battles have been simmering
for a while. Now the issues are coming to the surface in a somewhat disjointed,
pre-emptive and reactive fashion - whether by design or not. It is historical
and ground-shaking stuff.
Policy Debates Frames We are Used to
We are used to policy debates about positive/ collective rights (e.g.
universal education, healthcare and welfare). We are accustomed to debates
about individual rights (e.g. property rights, freedom to conduct business,
travel, freedom from coercive laws impinging on individual rights, etc.)
Individual rights now also include Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) granted by law a
year ago.
Choice at Core of Christianity
Christians are familiar with notions of choice. The Holy book they
follow from beginning to end asks them to choose. So it is not a surprise some
Christians went along with the idea of Australia holding the SSM plebiscite
(vote). As they saw it this choice does not seek to force any individual human
being to adopt Christian beliefs. So in a way, SSM may turn out to be even less
contentious compared to any idea that Christian schools should be forced to
adopt non-Christian ethos.
Why is it more contentious? This is my take. Christianity at its basic
level requires every parent to bring up their child in line with Christian
teaching. They affirm this during child baptism/ dedication – and the whole
congregation is asked to affirm it. It’s not just a cultural tradition - it is
an expression of faith. Their biblical texts, from the Old to the New Testament
requires of them do so.
Now that SSM is legalised, the impact on other areas of policy means
Australia is confronted with having to mediate conflicting choices. Conflicting
because what one group sees as their relationship to the Divine,
another group sees it simply as a right to be recruited and teach in a school
of their choice without regard to the Christian ethos.
These two conceptions are in conflict.
School Issues Not Debated Before
Plebiscite
Before the SSM became law some religious freedom advocates expressed
concern that legalisation would lead to erosion of religious freedoms. There
were strong views by many commentators that debating issues in-depth is
psychologically harmful to those of different sexual orientation. Some
commentators went as far as making known their views that erosion of religious
rights was a positive thing.
At the time many media commentators and politicians maintained that
legalisation of religious freedoms will not conflict with SSM rights. They
completely dismissed concerns about extent of flow on effects as
fear-mongering. Presumably, some in the public believed this line, and others
didn’t.
Even a few Christian clergy appearing on media seemed unconcerned about
religious rights. Surprisingly some just framed this discussion in terms of
clergy’s rights to freely officiate in churches without intrusion. The question
of believers (not simply clergy) did not get much attention. It was knowingly
or unknowingly assumed by some that believers are not impacted (ale their
spiritual practices).
The then PM Turnbull commissioned a review of Religious Freedoms chaired
by Philip Ruddock. Perhaps to placate religious groups who had expressed
concern that legalisation of SSM was likely to have flow-on effects leading to
erosion of religious freedoms. The Ruddock Religious Freedom Review was the
expression of this ‘compromise’. https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review.
Although The Religious Freedom Report was submitted to the Turnbull
Government in May 2018, it never saw the light of day. The New PM Morrison is
yet to release it either.
Some activist forces pre-emptively leaked selective bits of this Ruddock
Report and effectively set a policy agenda. Going by what I saw in the media,
many asserted in the media that religious rights must be overridden to
accommodate choices and needs of students and teachers that are of same-sex
orientation. Initially this seems to have caught the religious freedom
advocates on the back foot, but not for too long.
The whole thing has sent shockwaves through some religious adherent
circles. Shock waves because of realisation that SSM appear to go beyond what
some previously understood it to be. A range of laws are in the process of
being reviewed and updated Australian State and Federal Parliaments to
accommodates rights that are believed to flow-on from SSM law.
Australian Religious Diversity – ABS
Data
It is useful to just keep in mind where Australia is at in terms of
people’s self-reported beliefs. According to the ABS (2018) the last 2016
Census found:
- 61% (14 million) Australians
belong to a religion or spiritual belief
- 86% of all the people
identified as religious are Christians
- 14% (two million) indicated
a religion other than Christianity
- Islam - 600,000 people
- Buddhism - 560,000
- Hinduism - 440,000
- Sikhism - 130,000
- Judaism - 90,000
- 30% (7 million) - No Religion/ secular - Atheism, Humanism
or Agnosticism
Source: ABS 2018: Australia’s religious
diversity on World Religion Day
Fragmentation & At Cross-purposes
Australia seems to be at a crossroad. Take the idea of Christians who
encouraged holding a SSM plebiscite - to them the exercise was about freedom of
conscience. Freedom to make choices – for oneself and the family they are
rearing. This freedom also lets others choose for themselves how they live
their lives.
On the other hand, those opposed to religious freedoms are concerned
about advancing their own rights in terms of how they live their lives, express
and choose relationships. Going by media reports, it seems some are also keen
to teach in Christian schools and in their view they don’t see why recruitment
practices should exclude them based on their sexual orientation and lack of
support of the Christian ethos.
Here it gets puzzling in terms of maintaining community cohesion and
harmony. First, Christian schools are not just about secular education - they
are also about doing pastoral care. If they are doing their job well, these
pastoral care practices would be influenced by Christian values or those
sympathetic to such ethos. Let’s say someone is not sympathetic to Islamic,
Buddhism or Scientology, is it wise that they work in organisations run by
either of such faith? What exactly is the intention? What will be the result?
Same with Christian schools. Such a change if it was to occur will also
mean the Australia political leaders in their wisdom are prepared to dismiss
spirituality and treat it as something that can simply be reconstructed through
a political process.
Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human rights -
Article 18 specifically affirms religious rights. If any current or future
Australia Government decides to ignore Article 18 it seems to me this would be
a fundamental shift in how competing secular and religious values have been
mediated – in terms of freedoms, it will be a decisive generational shift that
erodes autonomous religious choices.
As already noted, while some Christians are concerned about erosion of
their freedoms, some appear less so. Some denominations appear to have a shared
formal position; others hold more than one position. Some religious organisations
may also hold varied positions. So while we are told 61% of Australians
identified themselves in Census data as Christian, a substantial 61.6% of those
who participated in the SSM plebiscite voted ‘yes’ and 38.4% ‘no’.
Notwithstanding that some people did not participate in the plebiscite, as a
nation this issue indicates diversity even within the church.
But it cannot be assumed that all the Christians who voted ‘yes’ in SSM
would necessarily approve that all school institutions should abandon their
Christian ethos where such ethos found itself in conflict with the rights of
teachers or students who identified themselves as gay or intersex.
The bottom line seems to be – are there circumstances where the Federal
and State Governments will be seeking to force Christian schools to deliver
sexual and gender identity content that is opposed to Christian ethos?
On the subject of schisms, currently the Liberal Party is bearing the
brunt of it. The divisions emerging out of the SSM flow-on policies are just
one. It doesn’t help that some conservative leaders seem oblivious of their
role as guardians or custodians of this earth, opting to disregard climate
change and energy policies, not even policies framed using market mechanisms.
They have also faced a backlash whenever a few in their midst deploy the ‘race’
card to win elections.
Internal party battles are matters on public record. PM Turnbull is gone
although active on public sphere. His long seat long held by Libs is gone. We
have seen resignations from the party and public battles over what makes the
‘heart of the party’ and who defines it. Add to this, some in the Liberal ranks
and their voters want to see gay and intersex rights extended beyond SSM law,
who knows where the party will land.
The Labor Party was a strong SSM legalisation supporter and so far has
escaped open internal divisions experienced on the other side of politics. So
far it appears if it returns to office Labor will further extend those rights
in sectors such as schools and perhaps beyond.
Labor seems to look at religion in humanistic or socially constructed
terms. Like some of media commentators or even some Christian
‘moderates’, Labor (perhaps in good faith) seems to see Christians schools as
just engaging in discrimination by not showing willingness to recruit gay
teachers in the future. There is lack of recognition here that Christian
practices are way of life.
Another point of division is evident in some distinct Labor held seats.
Official reports show that some key Labor electorates voted ‘no’ during SSM
vote. The media and ABS reports include Blaxland, Watson in Western Sydney and
McMahon electorates. We also know more Non-English speaking background people
were likely to say ‘no’ compared to English-Speaking background Aussies.
Labor is ahead in Party preferred opinion polls by a significant margin.
However, if elected, and once a full impact of revisions of federal and State
laws flowing on from SSM start filtering down, it will just be a matter of time
before those Labor voters are forced to evaluate their willingness to give up
religious freedoms.
What Also Comes to Mind
As I have thought through these issues, some political and philosophical
thinkers came to mind. What do they have to say about complex situations when
you have competing ideas and traditions in need of adjudication? I thought of
John Stuart Mill and how he approached the idea of Tyranny of the
Majority. I have thought of civil and political rights and protections such
as those discussed by contemporary writers such as Patrick Dunleavy. I couldn’t
help but also look up T.H. Marshall and his citizenship thesis. And I took a
little glimpse of Immanuel Kant.
And if some Politicians in Australia decide it okay to ‘extinguish’
Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, what is this precedent
setting for the future? And which group could be next?
As I finish this article, I cannot see how it will be possible for
Australia to take away Christian freedoms relating to schools and parenting
without consequences. It is a big change if it is to be imposed. This is not
simply about political competition between major parties and the median voter.
The ramifications could go far beyond the two major political parties in the
longer term. We are talking about the stuff of life, people’s relationship to
what they consider to be their transcendent. What is cultural battle to one
person, for others their God is what they live for – it’s where they find
meaning. It’s what imparts in their being to love their neighbour. And love
their God.
These are by no means the only flow-on religious freedom questions
exercising the minds and the hearts at the moment. And Christian institutions
or families are not the only ones concerned. As a student of Christianity this
is my take of it.
