Having withdrawn its religious discrimination legislation, the Government has acted with the speed of an Olympic athlete to bring it back to the public. Perhaps the Prime Minister and Attorney are inspired by the sporting heroes who have stirred up this spurious debate.
The union-bashing thwarted by Pauline Hanson and the nightmare of religious discrimination draft legislation rejected by the business world are cynical manoeuvres by our Government to create and inflame divisions in Australian society. The practice of “wedging” opponents is now the standard fare of our politics. It is an inexcusably disgusting waste of precious time that damages both parties — the “wedger” and the “wedgee.” It takes two to tango. The Government wants to wedge but the Opposition does not have to be wedged.
The three cheerleaders in this embarrassing pseudo-religious farce are Israel Folau, Margaret Court and the ultra-conservative Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies. Are there Christians out there in 21st century Australia who can read and write who want to see their religion defined by this trio? Surely our country is not that backward.
We easy-going Aussies adopt an attitude of tolerant amusement to Bible-bashers. They can worship their God as long as they don’t get too aggro when they try to push him down our throats. The general objection to Bible-bashers is their inability to mind their own business. When they stick their noses into other people’s business, particularly their sexual business, they become obnoxious.
I will stick to the Christians here because they are causing most of the problems. The Jews are not looking for converts. The Muslims are consumed by their internal feud between Sunni and Shia. The Buddhists are more grown-up than the monotheists.
There are seven references to homosexuality in the Bible. Four are in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Judges and Leviticus. The three New Testament references are in the letters of Saint Paul, including the passage quoted by Israel Folau in his Facebook warning to the ungodly. Christ had nothing to say on the subject.
Saint Paul, writing 2,000 years ago, was addressing the Roman vices of male prostitution and paedophilia, which have not changed much in the intervening millennia. There are 250 references in the Bible to the abuses of wealth and 300 references about duties to the poor. These bare statistics should make quite clear to Christians where their priority lies. Christ threw the money-lenders out of the temple.
English philosopher John Gray writes that a common mistake among secular people is to assume that religious observance is about belief (or faith). Religion is primarily about practice. This came home to me when I gave a lecture to our local Anglican congregation in Perth on the Nicene Creed, that most perfectly-composed document known to mankind. I analysed the Creed in detail, line by line, clause by clause, word by word, in the Latin, because the Creed is about structure and Latin is a heavily-structured language.
The lecture was successful. People stayed awake and they were interested but it was obvious that they had not given the content of the Creed much thought, although they have recited it every week all their long lives. “I believe in one God … Credo in unum deum.” They are not in Church to talk to their God. They are there to be part of a community.
At a meeting where we heard lengthy analysis of the first religious discrimination draft, which was horrendously complicated, I spoke to a lawyer active in the Anglican Church who is in favour of legislation on this subject I told her that a harmonious society cannot be legislated into existence. It needs congenial give and take, the sort of thing we Australians like to think we are good at. The entry of government into religion is like a bad dream.
The recent legal fight between Israel Folau and Rugby Australia was not about religion. It was about the law of contract, which, I dare say, is just as complicated as the religious discrimination field we are now entering. The issue was Folau’s contract. Presumably, his former employer was advised that there was a big enough grey area to keep teams of lawyers arguing in the courts for weeks at huge expense. In those circumstances it was fair enough to settle out of court.
That is where religion is heading. There will be so much litigation that legal firms will create whole new divisions. We will have to build new court houses. At least that will provide jobs for building trades.
A Sydney academic has remarked on Scott Morrison’s “disconnect” from Australilan reality as he rushes to religion at a time when the country is on fire, the national economy is stagnant and world affairs among the superpowers are a balancing act that looks awfully close to crashing. The critic compared the Prime Minister’s religious distraction to Tony Abbot’s honouring of the Duke of Edinburgh.
Tony’s rush of blood only damaged Tony, who was able to laugh at himself. Scott Morrison, Christian Porter and the holy-rolling trio of Israel, Margaret and Glenn are damaging our society. The Senate showed what it can do with the Government’s union-bashing. When the time comes it should give the Bible-bashing the same treatment.
Jerry Roberts is a former parliamentary reporter and a member of the ALP
Jerry Roberts, born and raised in Mid-West USA, trained as a newspaper reporter in Perth and has covered politics, manufacturing, and Aboriginal Affairs. He has spent the second half of his life in outback Australia.
Comments
6 responses to “JERRY ROBERTS. Church and State again”
Thankyou for your article. I’m sure you are right about it being deliberately designed to maximise tensions where there aren’t any and to play wedge politics. The Bill is simply obscene. As a secular Australian I do not give this government my permission as a citizen to ‘force and coerce me as an individual to effectively signup to all other religious beliefs’ and to go about my daily life expected to be abused, exempted from employment of accessing public services by bigotry expressed in the name of ‘religion’.
I am appalled that Labor has not said, right at the beginning of this, a simple and categorical ‘no’ to this farce. Obviously they are still sucking their thumbs, but that’s no excuse. By not having done this they have in fact clearly signalled that they largely support this bigotry and are losing their majority support.
There can be no ‘negotiating ‘ on this Bill. It must be binned in total.
Jim, that is certainly my experience among fellow parishioners in Perth who are liberal and generous in their views on same sex marriage and who were outraged by the intemperate comments from Glenn Davies.
Hi Evan, The main concern about the bill is its insincerity. Likewise the Limitation on Cash bill now being studied by a Senate Committee. Both bills are phony. There is no religious discrimination in Australia requiring legislation and the cash limit clearly has nothing to do with organised crime, tax evasion or the black economy. The religious bill is designed to make trouble within the Labor Party and the cash bill aims to protect the banks in the next financial crisis. We have refugees from the Sydney Archdiocese in our little parish in suburban Perth.
Jerry Roberts: What a clear and generous explanation of this nonsense. The generic use of the phrase “religious discrimination” essentially in the popular understanding meaning “Christian” given the key players are of such limited and narrow fundamentalist expression – is surely dishonest. Certainly devious sleight-of-hand. It seems to me that we need to know the specifics of the PM’s religious faith – not just the simple happy-clapper babbling-in-tongues and exactly what it is that he seems to want protected – and then the same with Israel F’s tiny, tiny sect – and indeed that of Margaret Court. It may mean that most religious folk – most Christian religious folk – are being played for suckers – that these groups who want to discriminate against the rest of us are fundamentally already dishonest. Transparency, please! (And hey! I was raised in a fundamentalist sect – which to be quite frank – relished a bit of struggle with the way the world viewed it – it proved that “we” were indeed God’s chosen folk! I’ve been long gone from its strictures – but never have I looked back at my childhood and thought – we needed legislation protection for our weirdness! Never!) This whole thing is – as Jerry puts it in his opening paragraph – a way of creating rancour and divisiveness where in truth none really existed – (except among the already disaffected and disgruntled).
Well, Glenn Davies is not ultra-conservative – more a middle of the road to left one.
Yes, the bill is awful and will lead to a many a lawyer becoming wealthy. One of my reasons for being against a bill of rights (which Jerry may be in favour of) – this applies to all sorts of laws.
If a harmonious society cannot be legislated does this meaning doing away with anti-vilification laws?
Glenn Davies seems little different to a coal baron or a property baron. If he can get a win, he’ll take it, and who cares what the ordinary people think.
To this non-believer, the Anglican and Catholic establishment always looms front and centre, if there’s some opportunity to punish women or LGBTQ. If it’s an issue that actually matters, they’re well to the rear.