The issue of politics and the role religion has to play in politics is an issue of much debate and difference of opinion. In Australia, it is widely assumed that there is a separation of church and state and that Australia is a secular nation. However, is this the case? Does Australia have a separation of church and state? If not, what role should religion play in the political discussions of the nation? What role has religion previously played in Australian politics? What role is religion currently playing in Australian politics? Given Australia’s demographics and the state of religion within Australian society, what role should religion be playing in Australian politics? Or should religion play no role whatsoever in Australian political discourse? In order to discover the role that religion should play in Australian politics, it is important to look at the role religion has played in Australian politics, and the role that it is legally able to play.
Separation of church and state in Australia is different to much of the western world. Whilst it is generally assumed that there is a clear separation of church and state in Australia, the reality is more complicated. According to Hogan (1981, p.216) all state constitutions, with the exception of Tasmania, make no mention of what the relationship should be between the church and the state. He says “States are constitutionally free to establish any religion, suppress any religious organisations” and “To deny many aspects of religious freedom” (Hogan 1981, p.217).
At the Commonwealth level, the Constitution provides no clarity when it comes to what role, if any, religion should play in the governance of the nation (Ash 2010, p.120). As if to make it difficult on purpose to decipher th...
... middle of paper ...
... conservative Christianity in Australian electoral politics.’ Traffic [Parkville], pp17-35, viewed 11 May 2014,
The Australian Humanist 2011, ‘What is the Future of Religion in Australian Politics?’ The Australian Humanist, vol.102, pp.10-13, Humanities & Social Sciences Collection, viewed 3 May 2014,
Zimmerman, A 2014, ‘Australian Constitution: Constituting a Christian Commonwealth: The Christian foundations of Australia's Constitution’, News Weekly, vol.2916, pp.15-16, APAFT, viewed 11 May 2014,
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
The Church was not the centre of life as it was in Asia or in Europe. The separation of Church and State was clear, and the Church had nearly no influence in Politics. Australian Catholics focused on saints of Irish and English origin, while these saints held nearly no influence in other nations.
no author. (2011). New Australian of the Year Wants to Debate an Australian Republic. Available: http://www.republic.org.au/story/new-australian-year-wants-australians-debate-australian-republic-courier-mail-26111. Last accessed 20th June 2011.
Between 1947 and 1971, even if you did not practice your religion it was still expected that you would identify yourself as being a part of your/ your family’s religion. In 1947 the ‘no religion’ category made up only 0.3% of religious affiliation in Australia. A change in social values and attitudes has since seen a dramatic increase in people identifying as belonging to ‘no religion’ with the category reaching 6.7% in 1971, “The specific instruction 'if no religion, write none' included in the 1971 Census saw an increase in this response from 0.8% in the previous Census to 6.7%.”(Australian Social Trends, 2013). The chart below is a visual representation of the growth in the ‘no religion’ category.(sourced from Australian Social Trends, 2013).
McCrudden, C. Int Jnl Constitutional Law. Multiculturalism, freedom of religion, equality, and the British constitution: The JFS case considered 20119 (1) 200-229 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor022 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
The most important aspect to consider is why political parties split when it comes to religious battles in the first place. Glaeser (2005) starts this argument by explaining that when you attract the median-voter there is always a high voting turnout. If this is true, then why do politicians take both ends of the spectrum in most cases when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage and abortions? Glaeser (2005) contends that there are statistical evidence that supports the connection between religious attendance and religious extremism. Exit polls from the 2004 Presidential election show a strong rise in the correlation between religious attendance and party affiliation. This happens because religion as a whole becomes a medium for discussion, much like major news organizations. The only difference is that religion is singular in its method, as Glaeser (2005) points out, in that the people focus on one issue and decide politically based on the preferences shown. The political parties differ for two majo...
In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. However, throughout the history of the United States the controversial question over the relationship between church and state has always been called into question in establishing a one religion government. The main focus of the inquiry is to decide whether to keep the establishment clause or to tear it down and move towards a theocratic system. One side of the debate is the group against the separation of Church and State, who believe that if America was a more religious nation that it would become more moral as well as bring everyone in agreement with national decision making. Therefore the belief is that the United State would become more unified in an already corrupt system. On the other hand, the side for separation argues that the distance between established religion and national government is inherently necessary to keep maintain: religious tolerance, prevent biases, and prejudices, along with any sort of religious freedom in country that has thousands of different organized religions.
Throughout our history there has been an ongoing argument between religion and government. Should religion play a part in the government, schools and other social compasses or should it be separated? Some believe that religion should be a part of the government while others believe that there should be a distinct separation. Some believe that religions should be able to influence the workings of the government and attempt to elect their own politicians. I believe the opposite. I believe that religion should have no influence on the way our government approves laws, elects officials or conducts their business. Throughout this essay I will give reasons and references as to why I agree with the separation of government and religion.
Thomas, Oliver "Buzz". "How To Keep The 'United' In United States: Coping With Religious Diversity In The World's First 'New' Nation." Church & State Feb. 2007: 19+. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.
Hawley, Helen, and Gary Taylor. "Freedom of religion in America." Contemporary Review 282.1649 (2003): 344+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Ecumenism, in the sense of Australian Christianity, is the religious initiative towards unity within the Christian church. It is the promotion of co-operation and improved understanding between distinct religious groups or denominations within Christianity and other religions.
Christianity’s role in America has rapidly changed over the last decades. Although it is still the most popular religion in the country its power over the people has decreased significantly. However, there are still many misconceptions towards American Christianity and in order to understand the unique nature of this religiously diverse country; one must understand its history and its citizens own views on the matter.
For thousands of years, religion has exerted a great influence over economic and political life. Even today religion is called upon to support rulers, contacts and other legal procedures.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...