|
Does a Preamble Need a God?
Dr Marion Maddox
Social Policy Group
12 October 1999
Background
The existing Preamble to the Australian Constitution describes the people
of Australia as 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'. The
Constitutional Convention in February 1998 delegated discussion of that
phrase to a working group. The working group recommended retaining it
in any new Preamble. The Convention agreed that any new Preamble should
make reference to God but did not prescribe a wording. In the November
1999 Constitutional Referendum, Australians will vote on a new Preamble
beginning 'With hope in God ...'
The inclusion of God has so far proved remarkably uncontroversial, compared
with the debate which it generated in the 1890s' Constitutional drafting.(1)
Indeed, so little discussion has it aroused that 'With hope in God' is
one of the few clauses to have survived unamended from the Prime Minister's
draft Preamble to the present proposed wording. By contrast, the proposed
inclusion of 'mateship' seems to have provided a greater challenge to
our national self-understanding. Given this lack of debate, it is helpful
to review briefly the major arguments which can be advanced for and against
an explicit mention of God.
Why put God in?
Widespread theism
In Australia, a majority of the population identifies with a religion.
Around 69.5 per cent of respondents in the 1996 Census identified with
a Christian denomination. A further approximately 1.6 per cent identified
with some other monotheistic tradition (mainly Muslim and Jewish). A broad
reading of the 1996 Census would find about 73 per cent of the population
identifying with traditions which are likely to invoke a concept of 'God'.(2)
A 1994 Saulwick Age poll found 75 per cent of those surveyed claimed
belief in God.(3) Including God in the Preamble enables these Australians
to understand their political institutions in the context of their cosmology.
Theological significance
For theists, God is the source of all individual and collective life.
A document as important as the Constitution should not neglect to remind
the nation of that reliance.
Tradition
Australia's legal and political institutions draw on the Westminster
heritage. One basis of the Crown's legitimacy is its relationship with
the established church. Australia's legal and political institutions therefore
have a Christian heritage. A reference to God in the Constitution provides
a link with the sources of our tradition.
Transcendent values
'God' can be understood as a metaphorical representation of values which
transcend day-to-day political expediency. Nations and politicians are
inclined to hubris: a vision in which power originates beyond visible
political institutions is a useful corrective.
National cohesion
'God' is a useful shorthand representation of the nation's collective
existence-a summing up of the enduring qualities which transcend our individual
differences.
Why leave God out? I: Secular arguments
Religious diversity
A substantial minority (some 25 per cent) of Australians identifies with
no religion or with religious traditions in which the monotheistic use
of 'God' is difficult to accommodate. The Constitution demands the assent
of all, not just a majority, and therefore should avoid unnecessarily
contentious expressions.
Vagueness
Regardless of the general desirability of God's inclusion, some may take
issue with the specific wording proposed. 'With hope in God' is presumably
intended to be more tentative than 'With trust ...' or 'With faith ...',
perhaps recognising religious diversity. However, the phrase may leave
interpreters in doubt about its meaning; it is unclear what practical
difference it makes to describe the Commonwealth as constituted 'with
hope in God ...'
Tradition
Australia's Constitution (s. 116) prevents the Commonwealth making a
law for the establishment of any religion. Our political institutions
and traditions draw on USA models as well as Westminster and therefore
can claim to inherit that system's commitment to a secular state.(4)
Culture
Australia's national self-image reflects our history of convict anticlericalism,
founding myths of frontier independence and modern urban cosmopolitanism.
Religion in public discourse is likely to be ridiculed as 'god-bothering'
hypocrisy.
Democratic theory
The religious beliefs of citizens are irrelevant to the nation's constitutional
arrangements. In democratic theory, political power is not divinely ordained:
sovereignty belongs to the people. Implying divine rather than popular
sovereignty allows the people to evade, neglect or be deprived of both
the privileges and responsibilities of sovereignty.
Why leave God out? II: Religious arguments
Not all those who believe in a God necessarily want God in the Constitution.
A range of arguments may lead the religiously committed to advocate a
secular Constitution.
Religious freedom
The dissenting Protestant churches brought to Australia a history of
discrimination for their failure to adhere to the established church.
Consequently, they have held that strict church-state separation is the
best defence of religious freedom-for example, they have often stood against
state uses of religion (e.g. oaths for jury or Parliamentary service).
The same reservations could apply to Constitutional invocation of God.
Blasphemy
Attaching the name of God to a necessarily flawed, human document takes
God's name in vain.
National hubris
Attaching the name of God to the Constitution improperly implies divine
sanction for Australia's existence or constitutional arrangements.
Theological precision
To the framers of the 1901 Constitution, 'God' meant the Christian God.
In today's Constitutional debates, the term is commonly said to embrace
any meaning with which citizens of a religiously diverse Australia would
endow it. But, taken so broadly, it becomes vacuous. There is no value
in loading our Constitution with a meaningless concept.
Argument from mutual respect
Many who believe in a God cite their own strength of conviction as a
reason for not wanting to violate others' deeply-held beliefs. Their own
belief heightens appreciation for the sensitivities of those whose beliefs
do not include the concept of God.
God and Australia's future
The scanty public discussion to date of God's inclusion in the Preamble
seems often to have rested on the contestable assumption that widespread
monotheism automatically translates into widespread support for God's
constitutional invocation. Political debate has perhaps reflected the
perceived difficulty for elected representatives in publicly distancing
themselves from a concept which is taken to enjoy near-universal support.
If the proposed Preamble is endorsed in the November 1999 Referendum,
God will be included. Discussion about the phrase's appropriateness and
significance may, however, arise in subsequent debate over constitutional
interpretation. Related debates about the appropriateness of religious
forms and expressions in public life may arise in other areas of political
controversy. Keeping in mind the range of arguments on either side may
help to inform such debates as they arise.
Endnotes
- See Richard Ely, Unto God and Caesar, Melbourne University
Press, 1976.
- Census data from Philip J. Hughes, Religion in Australia:
Facts and Figures Christian Research Association, Kew, Vic, 1997.
- The Age, 17 October 1994.
- Indeed, prospective migrants are advised that they have to accept
the basic principles of freedom of speech and religion. http://www.immi.gov.au
|
