‘Australian democracy is based on Judeo-Christian values. The increasing secularist dominance of public life threatens our democracy’. Do you agree?

Democracy is a tool for development and change, and is not based upon a specific religion or ideology, but a combination of many. Secularism aids in keeping democracy afloat and also acts as a protection for religious practice. The Judeo-Christian claim on democracy is flawed in various ways and can be used as a means to undermine other ethnicities and faiths which in turn undermines Australia’s inclusivity and multiculturalist nature. The confusion between democracy and the state, as well as the idea that secularism is an “anti-religious” concept, are gaps that need to be filled and rectified first before analysing democratic values and the relationship between secularism and conservatism.

Democracy is an elastic term with multiple models of practice; Australia is a representative democracy (also known as a liberal democracy). Despite debate over its various forms of function, democracy as a whole can be seen as a tool for development and change. It caters for citizens of various ethnicities, religions, races and beliefs; allowing them to participate in elections and influence the government through political parties. However, it is important not to confuse “democracy” with the values and beliefs of the government in power. Democracy is as Joseph Schumpeter summarises – the opportunity for the “demos” to accept or refuse “the men who are to rule them.” Whilst some may openly express their religiously-influenced practices, it is not to say that that is what the majority of Australia believe as well. Democracy is not based upon one specific religion or ideology; however, it can be argued that the majority of democratic values (in Australia) align more closely to liberalist and socialist values, rather than conservative. Whilst it is a “majority rule” system, a basic feature of Australia’s democracy is to safeguard and protect the rights of the minority as well. Such as Aborigines, non-English speaking migrants and women. All people, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity are to be heard. This also emphasises the point that democracy and secularism can work with religion, rather than against it; a point that will later be discussed.

A liberal, representative democracy embodies the following values and ideas: Individuals are both moral and rational, change and growth within society is natural and therefore, compromises must be struck, limited governmental power, governmental legitimacy, justice, respect, and religious, political and intellectual freedom. It is obvious that these basic Australian democratic values align very closely to that of liberalist and socialist values. Liberalist values include: Individualism, Freedom, Reason, Equality, Toleration, Consent and Constitutionalism. Socialist values include: Social Equality, Need and Community. Conservatist ideas, however, differ quite substantially; placing question upon if Democracy has many religious foundations at all. One of the basic features of conservatism is the “desire to conserve” and uphold tradition, for our societal ways have been “tested by time” and therefore, must be correct. However, this concept is quite flawed, for it is obvious that society has outgrown many traditions and practices, religious ones especially. For instance, we do not stone homosexuals anymore, we do not sacrifice our children or refuse women into church if they have their periods. We no longer see reason within those (among many other) practices and rituals. They have been “tested by time” and have failed. Our liberalist values, however, have been progressively evident through the legalisation of same-sex marriage, abortion rights and euthanasia in some states. Another basic feature of democracy is the concept of “equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and privilege.” Observing the conservatist values, it is not hard to see how conflicting their views are to this basic democratic feature. Limitation of human rationality, the need for strict and stiff state intervention and enforcement, a common (often traditional) culture, a hierarchical system and the authority from a being “above” are all conservative ideas. Looking, as we have, more broadly at conservative values, before specifically Judeo-Christian values, it is evident that the conservatist values above fail to align with the values of the Australian democracy.

Those who claim democracy to be based upon Judeo-Christian values are incorrect in saying so, as the concept of “Judeo-Christian values” itself is historically flawed. The term overlooks great differences between faiths and doctrine. It is almost anti-Judaic when observing the basic concept that Judaism is simply a stop-over before adopting Christianity. As well as assuming that Jewish values are inherently Christian. Many Jews reject the term and often feel terrorised and excluded within states that present this foundational value. This sentiment alone reveals a great deal about its loose foundation. The morals presented from “Judeo-Christian” conservatives are usually easily debunked and present many contradictions when observing society. As well as the fact that conservatist values usually push the majority towards one belief system and one way of life, which isn’t what democracy is about: representing and protecting multiple belief systems and allowing them the freedom of practice and speech. As analysed above the term “democracy” is all about “the demos” ; not just the Christian or Judeo-Christian demos. It is, therefore, naïve to assume that every individual and group who ultimately have a say within the Australian political system, derive their beliefs and actions from the bible or any/all other places where “Judeo-Christians” believe to source their morals and knowledge from. The bottom line is that the Australian democratic system is built upon the principles of inclusion, diversity and equality for all belief-systems.

The Australian Christians political party openly states that the Australian society’s values are “based on our Judeo-Christian heritage, which are ultimately outlined within the bible.” It is firstly important to reflect that claiming society’s values are derived solely from the bible is a notion that is exclusive within itself to any other ideology and religious-text. Secondly, they claim that all “Australian Christians” recognise such. However, our democracy is not made up of just Christians. We will now analyse what these “Judeo-Christian” values look like and if they do reign any truth within our society. Broadly speaking and assuming for argument’s sake that “Judeo-Christian values” isn’t an historically shaky term, the values of Hope, Honesty, Integrity and Respect are all be present within the Australian society. However, such broad values can be contributed to any and all ideologies or foundational principles.

Looking more closely at their other values it is evident that the specifics of these values do not align with that of the Australian democracy. They can be easily debunked due to their antiquated nature and the contradictions that present themselves cannot go unnoticed. Freedom and Mutual Respect, for example, seems reasonable and accurate to the Australian democracy on surface level, however, the “respect” and “freedom” they supposedly grant others is fundamentally lost if they claim to derive their law and values from the bible – which is known to discriminate against homosexuals, women, blacks and other minority groups of the time. In our current time it would be unacceptable to introduce and carry on laws presented in the bible, such as slavery; as stated above those values have been “tested by time” and have failed to be upheld in Australia and many other states, due to the increase of science, common sense and increasing secularism. Moral Law and Justice are two other “Judeo-Christian” values that seem reasonable but lack execution when digging deeper into their meaning. Both are again said to be derived from the bible. However, if Australian law was, we would not have witnessed the legalisation of same-sex marriage and the other passed laws previously stated; and we would most likely still accept slavery. Cherry-picking of the bible is a major issue and point of interest when debating such topics and it is important to remember so. It can be easy to argue for “Judeo-Christian” values if you could happily ignore and erase many rudiments presented in it; which is what many do. It is true that some biblical values are present within democracy on a broad level, but again, that can be said for Islamic values, Buddhist values, Atheist values and so on. Which brings me to discuss how such a term has come to be used to undermine other belief systems.

The term “Judeo-Christian” has been adopted by Western states as a means to antagonise and reject Muslim immigrants and those practicing Islam. It is used to create an “us and them” mentality and propagate unrealistic fear of Islamists. Daniel Lapin, an orthodox rabbi expressed that Muslims would not adopt “Judeo-Christian” values or align it with that of Islam, as they would outline the discrepancies between Holy Books. The discrepancies are definitely there, and can be found when comparing the bible to the Jewish Torah as well. However, the push for white supremacy, the bigoted view and unwarranted fear of Muslims as a whole, as well as the negligence to accept and welcome them into Australia is the main reason why the Islamic community feel targeted and marginalised when the term “Judeo-Christian” is tossed around. This is solidified as we acknowledge the sentiments from the Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director, Jim Wallace; stating that if immigrants wish to assimilate and subscribe to Australian values “it would seem obvious that they should know where they come from.” Whilst also questioning the motives of immigrants and their desire to “change the Australian value system”, it becomes fairly evident that these excuses and conclusions are derived simply from a place of ignorance and prejudice. For many Muslim immigrants do not wish to alter Australian values, not should feel the need to assimilate to our belief systems. Once again, Australia allows the freedom of religious practice, and that should apply to immigrants seeking asylum, as well as those already residing in Australia. This idea of “Western” culture is something that should be analysed further, for many contradictions and hypocrisy will no doubt present themselves when observing Australia’s diverse nature, and the fact that our population came into being from the action of migrating from foreign countries. 

The increasing secularist dominance of public life does not threaten democracy but actually aids in keeping it afloat, as secularism (also an elastic term) is about the separation of state and religion. This separation is important and vital in maintaining a non-discriminatory society in regard to religious practice and actually can be seen as a form of protection for religious groups, as they do not need to compete (politically) but are led to live in toleration and respect. Ronald Dworkin, political philosopher, expresses how each citizen has the right to determine what a “good life” looks like, whether choosing to follow a religion or not. However, the state should not impose nor reject any individual ideology. This secularist concept endorses toleration of all religions. Secularism does not aim to reject or extinguish religion, but allows it its own space to exist; regardless of the many misconceptions of the term. Within the separation of state and church, ideologies are ensured protection under the state ; again, this is where freedom of religious practice comes into play. Therefore, it is safe to say that rising secularist dominance is actually aiding democracy and its varied ethnicities; with aims to keep discrimination at a low. Whilst the state should not be confused with democracy as a whole, the state has been making its own moves toward a more secular nation; this has been seen through the push to remove the Lord’s Prayer from Parliament in order to respect all faiths. Religious extremism, conservatism and nationalism have all been proven to threaten democracy more so than secularism , as they often aim to form one strict identity and push all to one certain truth. This however, goes against the core values of democracy. Australia is a liberal democracy and as Nadar Hashemi outlines “a liberal democracy requires secularism”.

The Australian democracy is not based upon Judeo-Christian values, but more so align itself with that of liberalism and socialism; allowing the freedom of all faiths. The concept of “Judeo-Christian” values is often used to reject those of the Islamic faith, causing them to feel targeted and unwanted within Western states. It is important to note that the term is historically shaky and the values presented often reveal many fundamental flaws and contradictions when observing society. Secularism is often misunderstood as an ideology that rejects and targets religion, however, this isn’t so. Secularism is simply the separation of state and church, and with this separation tolerance, freedom of religious practice and lack of religious practice can all healthily exist. Democracy is threatened more by religious extremism, rather than secularism.