Parliamentary prayers, the Australian Constitution and the taxation system show inappropriate discrimination in favour of the Christian religion. This has manifested itself in an insidious fashion; affecting the ability of many to critically analyse issues, as evidenced by the readiness of some religious people to adopt an unthinking line against issues such as euthanasia, abortion and gay relationships. Debate and critical analysis, free of the shackles of religious constraint, is necessary if all Australians are to be regarded equally, rather than as part of a society with divisive pro-Christian elements. The Constitution requires a more secular approach because it effectively discriminates against non-Christians. Kevin Rudd's foreshadowing of a referendum on the recognition of Aboriginal people in the Constitution should catalyse a debate on the Constitution's preamble. It is subservient, irrelevant and demeaning that the preamble says we are humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God. It is undignified to humbly rely on anything if, as a nation, we are to forge our own identity and determine our destiny with pride. The words ''Almighty God'' may have some meaning for Christians and religious people, but it is gobbledegook to those who are not. Some may argue that the reference to God should reflect the historical nature of Australia's early white Christian-based society, but this constitutes a denial of Aboriginal belief systems and of the multicultural and largely secular nature of modern Australia. The Christian belief in God does not deserve a place in such a legal, and political, document. While many people choose to follow the Christian religion, it is wrong to include such religious perspectives in a document that belongs to all Australians.
Christian influence still permeates Australian society, and it has affected government through inequities in the legal, political and taxation systems. This will continue to be the case while religious leaders have a hold over their members, maintain the indoctrination of children, and continue to push their religious values on others. An ethical society should not permit religious and political leaders to impose their own religious values on others or hypocritically ask of others that which they would not do themselves. If the pressure of rational debate ensures that these fundamental principles of ethical behaviour are upheld, then we can go some way to improving the lives, and respecting the rights, of all Australians.
David Swanton is a Canberra scientist and ethicist.
