Freedom of religion is a common issue in liberal democracy. How does religious liberty equate inside the framework of Australian Republicanism?

Australia is not a particularly religious nation [PDF] . In Sydney 'no religion' is the third largest faith behind Catholicism and Anglican. Adelaide is Australia's least religious major city with no religion accounting for 21.4% of those polled and religion inadequately described being another 12.4%.

As a consequence, those with non-denominational religious beliefs are a significant minority.

Globalisation has had many effects in the allocation of capital, the movement of labour and the the transferral of goods and services. It has also had an effect in unifying political movements.

The United States has bucked the trend for major industrial nations in becoming less and less religious as they have become more prosperous. As a result the religious conservative movement in America is a well organised and well funded.

With globalisation their message reaches many empathic ears in Australia and is often absorbed as political issues or platforms by Australian Conservatives.

When Australia was a closed, protected and isolated nation-state the power of an international conservative movement did not have the political strength in Australia. Any religious movement had to be home-grown and face a significant non-religious minority in the polls and elections.

Globalisation has changed this dynamic. Issues are no longer as local as they used to be, and domestic public opinion can be swayed internationally through powerful groups that are well-funded and well-organised.

That is not to claim that a worldwide religious conservative movement is repugnant, rather to point out that a well funded and organized super-minority can skew issues and politics with global reach under globalisation.

For this reason, liberty needs double assurity of protection and entrenchment, especially liberty of religion.

Religion and Republicanism

The highest form of social organisation that is obtainable in this day and age is Liberal Democracy, and as a consequence is a principle of Australian Republicanism. That may change in the future, but for now remains true.

Theocracy is an inferior form of social organisation which entrenches tyranny and social/political privilege. It is not compatible with Australian Republicanism.

Central to liberal democracy is secularism where executive, legislative and judicial decisions are made under common law with deference to individual liberty, the individual as the discrete and dominant political entity and the principle of empiricism.

This requires that religion cannot be entrenched in any of those arms of government. Religion cannot be carried by the coercion of those arms, lest liberal democracy become theocracy and the republic a tyranny.

Republicanism is predicated on the protection of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority, while balancing representation sufficiently to ensure the minority will accept majority rule.

Given that faith follows from individual conscience, religion is a highly pluralist system. From Theism, to Atheism, to Deism, to Monotheism, to Polytheism.

Sects are also highly diverse in Australia. Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Presbyterian, Orthodox and so forth.

If the state chooses a single religion to encourage, enforce or entrench then it fails as a republic as it is coercing the minority and enabling tyranny of the majority. This is by definition not a republican system.

While there are many sects and religions in Australia, if there was one uniform thought on religion would the state be able to entrench religion? The answer is again no. It only takes one person to differ from the majority and it becomes tyranny from the majority.

As this purity of religion is not achievable, due to individuals being, well individual, and of independent thought, it becomes true that the state cannot use coercion or entrenchment for any religion.

Religion and Conscience

The individual is the dominant discrete political unit in Australian Republicanism, not the nation-state or state. Liberty becomes the guiding political philosophy under such a principle.

Religious faith and belief are a very individual process, and the religious bonds between man and God very private and sacrosanct.

Individuals find great comfort, strength and guidance in their personal relationship with god. They also create strong communal and social bonds with others of the same faith.

To break, suppress or deny this personal relationship between individual and god, through coercion or entrenchment of a religion or religious belief system, is tyranny. This is not compatible under a republican form of government.

Conclusion

The only place religion has in an Australian Republic is one of maximum liberty. Freedom of religion must be an absolute.

Religious liberty must be protected from a tyrannous government system, the tyranny of a powerful minority and tyranny of the majority.

The only logical conclusion is for freedom of religion to be entrenched in the Australian Constitution; ensuring that it remains an area of personal freedom that government cannot trespass into.

Mitt Romney's speech on his religion and politics identified 'secularists' as the enemy within the state.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This is grist for the mill of the sensationalists who adore the facetiousness of the 'war on christmas" and other absurdities. Romney is arguing that secularism has no place in constitutionalism.

Republicanism views liberty as an intrinisic property of being human, not as a gift from a nether world, nor an unprovable religious form.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

he is also incorrect in characterising this to the American founders, who were in reality a mix of atheists and deists. The latter finding the idea of an omnipotent or omnipresent god repulsive.

Andrew Sullivan is insightful when he comments that and issue with the speech is that, "The first [issue] is the absence of any notion that religious freedom includes the freedom to have no religion whatever."

Romney's speech ahas to be taken as pandering to the evangelical base of the modern American Republican party. The evangelicals seem to not understand the basis for modern constitutionalism and want the injection of religion into political life. History has shown over and over again this is a bad idea which leads to dysfunctional governance if not tyranny.

It is particularly ironic as Romney did not make religion an issue in Massachussettes in his time as Governor there. The US North-East is a very liberal area of America that does not make decisions on religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminative components. Individuals are judged on their merit.

If Romney chose to run under the banner of liberalism he should be ahead on the US Republican side of politics as on merit he helped introduce one of the few working universal health care systems. Yet because he chose to pursue the evangelical base he has to run away from merit as his platform and instead embrace the uniting of God and Politics.

Very foolish in my opinion.

Andrew Sullivan links to a Ron Paul statement on the issue:

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."

In other words, a candidate should be judged on merit. Very republican, and very liberal.