My blood ran cold on Saturday when I saw Jacqueline Maley's report in The Herald quoting huge chunks from my recent article about the impact of the trial on SRE.
Like anyone else I have my personal views on this issue, but I certainly don't speak on behalf of the Synod of the Anglican Church.
One aspect of the debate that Maley did not properly explain is why Anglican bishops are complaining about 'competition' from ethics.
The way it was stated in the SMH article led correspondents to focus anger on breaking up a so-called Christian 'monopoly'.
But is SRE really a monopoly and is the Anglican Church against competition? After all SRE is already a competition between a plethora of belief systems.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the SRE debate is that both sides appear to believe that the other is the 'Telecom' (or monopoly) in the equation.
What the Anglican Church fears is that the Labor Government will stack the rules of 'competition' against them (and all other SRE providers), using the monopoly powers of the Department of Education as a way of marginalising - even eradicating - SRE over the long term. Like Telstra in competition with other telcos, the Department of Education (DET) controls the infrastructure, so if the DET becomes the ‘SRE’ provider for the secularists, then they would have an unfair advantage.
In contrast, many atheists/secularists see SRE - enshrined in protective legislation - as a Telecom-style monopoly. As one of my sparring partners put it: ethics is the 'Optus' - the new kid on the block fighting a powerful monopoly. It therefore needs, he said, a leg up from the Government to get it on its feet.
But the new ethics option is not 'Optus' in any meaningful sense. SRE is already a competitive playing field. We do not need the Government to create a market. It already exists.
The false assumption from the pro-ethics camp is that SRE is one entity. Perhaps this is because secularists see all religions as the same thing?
The current SRE system is not merely Anglican or even Christian. It is designed in such a way that it can potentially represent every belief system in the community.
In my view the current SRE system could be easily tweaked to allow a secularist or 'non-religious' option into this market. It does not need the ground-zero complete overhaul that appears to be on the Minister of Education's agenda.
Lesson from Burkha ban
The SRE debate also comes at a time when the very notion of 'secularism' is up for grabs.
Facing the collapse of a multicultural consensus in the wake of September 11, secular Governments across the globe are struggling to work out how much freedom to afford devout religious minorities: especially Christian and Muslim groups.
The recent debate over the Burkha is one part of the debate.
Some conservatives in Australia, such as Cory Benardi completely misjudge what is at stake.
Bernardi writes:
Perhaps some of you will consider that burqa wearing should be a matter of personal choice, consistent with the freedoms our forefathers fought for. I disagree. The burqa isolates some Australians from others. Its symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from.
This line of argument sounds remarkably French: a plea for secular, non-religious homogeneity.
Australian political theorist Tim Soutphommasane wrote an insightful article in The Australian about Belgium's decision to ban the burkha, and the reasons France in seriously considering doing likewise.
Those familiar with France will be aware its civic culture isn’t one of vive la difference. The French republic has, since its birth through revolution, stood for an unambiguous and unitary creed: liberte, egalite, fraternite..it is contended the veil places a formidable barrier to solidarity (which is where fraternite enters the equation). Bernard Accoyer, president of the French national assembly, has said that the burka involves “a rejection of coexistence side by side, without which our republic is nothing”.
However the English-speaking world has offered a different vision of secularism to France, based on the idea of State 'tolerance'.
For example, in America the idea of the separation of church and state grew out of Protestant (and especially Puritan) experience of religious persecution in Europe. The idea was to protect the conscience of minorities against the totalising power of the State.
In Australia, the Constitution prevents the Government from establishing any religion. In this sense we have a secular Government but not a secular society, which is multi-cultural and multi-faith. In this context 'secular' means that the Government does not preference one religion over another.
It has been heartening to hear that 'tolerance' of religion is still the default position for most Australian secular-humanists. Even avowed atheists such as Mike Carleton took this approach when discussing the Burkha issue on ABC 702.
It also seems that most Australians do not want State-endorsed secular-humanism of the French-kind rise up as the replacement for our 110-year old non-denominational constitution.
Let's keep Australia as a land of freedom and the fair go.
