Article of the Month - June

Beyond Cups of Tea: The Hard Work of Interreligious Relations

Professor, The Rev’d Gary D Bouma

Associate Priest, St John’s East Malvern Anglican Parish

A great deal of genuine effort has been invested in promoting interreligious relations in Australia. We are globally outstanding both for the degree of religious diversity found in our country and in the programs, activities and policies devised to promote understanding and mutual respect. When European nations seem exasperated by diversity and claim multicultural societies cannot work, they simply have not made any where the same level of effort to achieve this as we have in Australia. We need to remember this when some here cite European cases as evidence that what in fact is working in Australia, cannot.

Australian religious diversity is a product primarily of migration and the increase in the numbers of those who have ‘no religion’. We have come a long way since 1947 when 88% of Australians identified with some ‘Christian’ group, ‘nones’ were 0.3% and religious groups like Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and pagans were invisible. In 2006 the largest Christian group were Catholics, Anglicans were tied with ‘nones’ at 18.7%, and if you lumped Presbyterians, Methodists, Uniting and Reformed you still only got 8.7% of the population. Moreover British Protestants are comparatively elderly. Meanwhile there were more Buddhists than Baptists, more Muslims than Lutherans and Hindus look like overtaking Pentecostals in the next census which may well see Christians at less than 60%.

In Australia, with 25% of the population born overseas and nearly 50% either born overseas or the child of at least one migrant parent, we have ample opportunity to practice the skills of interreligious dialogue. We are very likely to encounter those who are religiously ‘other’ in the course of our daily lives. We encounter those who wear different clothing or other visible symbols of their religious belief and practice. We make provision for those who have religiously grounded dietary restrictions. We are mindful that some people mark different festivals, fast at certain times; people whose heart beats to a different calendar. In the way we make these accommodations Australians are outstanding in the world and can serve as an example to others.

It is in the area of religion and social policy that the differences that divide us become more difficult. Some believe the society should put limits on freedoms of religion and belief – e.g. not to allow facial covering, not to permit religious groups to discriminate in hiring, to ban groups that seem to strange or new, to test the loyalty of some groups, etc. Meanwhile groups seek to re-make Australian society according to their religious values – e.g. banning abortion, banning gambling, restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, making divorce more difficult, privileging mother and father families, privileging stay at home mothers, etc. Some Christian groups lobby governments seeking to enshrine, maintain or restore the kinds of privileges they had in the 19^th Century in terms of government support for church building/restoration, tax benefits, symbolic exclusivity in civic places – like prayers in Parliament. My point is that religious groups often disagree with each other on these issues. 

In this context, it is important to realise that internal diversity within Christian and other religious groups is as great as differences among them and other religious groups. There is internal dissention over the roles of women, the acceptability of gay men and lesbians, forms of worship and a host of other issues. Those who see interreligious relations as primarily being between homolithic blocks of religion – Christian and Buddhist, or even Uniting and Muslim, fail to attend to the internal divisions of all religious groups. One of the hardest tasks of interreligious dialogue is actually intrareligious dialogue. We often find it harder to treat with respect and understanding those within our group with whom we have unresolvable religious differences.

Moreover, these inter- and intra-religious differences are not easily resolved. If I am religiously opposed to abortion it is a serious violation of my freedom of religion and belief to force me to have anything to do with providing abortions. However, if I am a citizen who does not share this belief and am seeking an abortion, but the only medical facility within 1,000kms does not provide this service, the religious beliefs of some Australians are preventing other Australians from receiving a service to which they are legally entitled. While this dilemma may be resolvable in an urban area where there are a diversity of health care providers, it is not readily resolvable in some areas. This example makes the point. Many others could be adduced, but the issue remains one of finding a solution where one person’s freedoms of religion and belief deprive another of a needed service. Given that Australia channels a very large proportion of its budgets through faith based organisations, this issue arises frequently. When the service my tax dollar is supposed to be making available to all Australians who need it, is prevented from being delivered by the organisation (or persons within the organisation) to whom the tax dollar is given to provide the service we have in my mind a serious problem. I respect the rights to freedom of religion and belief on the one hand and I respect the right of the person in need to be served. 

The fact that the Victorian government is intent on winding back legislation enacted to limit the rights of religious groups to discriminate makes this issue all the more urgent. I respect the need of groups to maintain their ethos. This does entail being mindful about who is hired. The fact that the Victorian government intends to permit discrimination in service delivery, how do they intend to address the needs of those who are deemed not worthy of the service provided, or who require a service that is not provided for religious reasons?

Interreligious dialogue can and does lead to understanding and mutual respect. It also often leads to a realisation that the differences that divide us are real and are not resolvable. In a highly diverse society we are challenged with the protection of important rights on the one hand and the provision of services on the other. The limitation of the services available to some, especially services funded by our tax dollars, are limited by the religious (or other) beliefs of others is not acceptable in a multicultural, multifaith society. Saying that is the easy part, the hard part is working to establish structures and policies that ensure that rights are protected and services are delivered.