Should government have funded MacKillop religious celebrations?

Let’s get this out of the way up front. Today’s blog may be about the events surrounding the canonisation of Mary MacKillop, but it is not a debate about atheism vs religion.

And while we’re getting things out of the way, full disclosure time. I spent quite some time arguing with myself over whether to do this, but in the end I was persuaded by some of the idiocy taking place on Twitter right now that I’ll save time this way.

I am not a Catholic, lapsed or believing. I am a person of faith, and that faith is my own business. I am also a strong supporter of keeping all religion out of schools and public institutions.

Right. Now that nonsense is out of the way, let’s get to the meat of it.

You’d probably have to be living under a rock not to know that today an Australian nun named Mary MacKillop becomes a Catholic saint. Over the last week, it was difficult to avoid the media coverage. Sky News runs stories about it every bulletin, and has set up a ‘headquarters’ in St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney. ABCNews24 likewise. Both have given over a significant portion of broadcast time to the ceremony itself. The big media winner is the Australian Public Affairs Channel, though – their non-stop coverage of all things MacKillop started on Saturday morning. (Curiously, the Australian Christian Channel elected not to cover the canonisation ceremony.) Social media isn’t far behind with discussions, debates, arguments and outright slanging matches.

Almost all commentators (whether paid journalists or people just giving their opinion) seem happy to grant that Mary MacKillop’s achievements in life were remarkable. Her work in education, her refusal to stand by silently as children were being abused, and her determination garner little more than praise. Opinions are, of course, sharply divided over the issues of miracles and sainthood. What’s not being talked about is the level of government support.

So let’s talk about that.

The government earmarked $1.5 million for the celebrations here in Australia. Add to that the travel, accommodation, security and associated expenses for Kevin Rudd, Julie Bishop, Barnaby Joyce and Ursula Stephens, and let’s not forget the ABC while we’re at it. That’s a sizeable amount of public money set aside for a specific religious celebration.

It’s also worth remembering that the announcement of the funding was made during the campaign, during a time when Julia Gillard was coming under fire for declaring herself an atheist. To many, that looked like pandering. Now Kevin Rudd and Julie Bishop have made an incredible show of bipartisanship, co-authoring an article about Mary MacKillop.

Is this kind of expenditure warranted for a purely religious celebration, and a partisan one at that? For that matter, should the government publicly fund religious celebration at all?

There are approximately five million people in Australia who identified themselves as ‘Catholic’ on the last census. That’s a significant number, but one could hardly say Australia is a Catholic nation. (In fact, until 1820, Catholicism was suppressed in the New South Wales colony.) The Constitution specifically prohibits anything of the kind:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

That being said, there is a curious disconnect with regard to Australian politics. The Preamble to our Constitution makes reference to ‘Almighty God’. Parliament is opened with a clearly Christian prayer, including the Anglican version of the Lord’s Prayer. Now these things may well be a holdover from our days as an British colony – a country whose head of state is also head of the Anglican Church – but they are still there.

So is Australia a ‘Christian nation’, as is often claimed (notably by the Australian Christian Lobby)? No. Certainly, the census suggests that the majority of Australians identify themselves as affiliated with one of the Christian faiths (but the Australian Bureau of Statistics acknowledges this does not necessarily reflect active participants in religion). Even if we assume a level of commonality between those faiths that may not exist, for purposes of generalisation, it still does not make us in any way an officially religious nation – nor do numbers necessarily legitimise spending for a particular religion.

I happen to think it is unreasonable for the government to fund any form of religious observance – and make no mistake, the canonisation ceremony is exactly that, conducted within a Mass celebrated by the Pope.

Religious institutions enjoy tax-free status in Australia. A religion can take advantage of this in a number of ways – not least of which could be the provision of homes and cars for its clergy (see recent investigations of Hillsong, for example). Part of the rationale behind is the recognition that religions provide certain services for their members, said services being considered important enough to exempt these institutions from the same revenue-gathering as other organisations, so that the money they receive from their members or activities can be used by the religion. This is an enormous concession. To then follow it up with public money for services which are aimed primarily at furthering that particular religion goes well beyond the point at which religions should be involuntarily supported by all Australians.

Even if you think that there is a place for government to support religion, the issue arises of favouritism. When was the last time a government spent money on a Muslim celebration? A Jewish one? Hindu? Or any other religion you care to name? It doesn’t. So, if public money is to be spent on a Catholic celebration, why not those of other religions? Is it unreasonable to think that funding (for example) Hanukkah celebrations is at least as worthy as this canonisation?

Raising these issues is a fraught business. Too often, those who are critical of the money being spent on the canonisation are met with accusations of ‘religious intolerance’, persecution of hapless Christians (note: not Catholics, Christians), and – most extraordinarily – the claim that this kind of criticism would never be levelled at Muslims.

The beat-up is sadly typical – the claim is that Christians are unfairly attacked for their religious beliefs, that they are held to a different standard from all other religions, and even prevented from speaking – and it’s all the fault of the ‘sneering secularists’ (to quote the Sydney Morning Herald’s Gerard Henderson on Insiders this morning). These lefty elitists call any criticism of Islam ‘Islamophobia’, but get stuck into Christians every chance they can, apparently.

Reality check.

Muslims come in for far more than their ‘fair share’ of criticism. It’s not exaggerating to say the rhetoric is hysterical. Every religion, for that matter, comes under fire somewhere. My own is frequently subject to ridicule. And you don’t have to identify as religious to attract criticism and attack – remember the storm that erupted over Gillard’s avowed atheism?

No religion should be subjected to hate speech and distortion – and sadly, there’s been all too much of that taking place on the social media sites lately. Equally, though, no religion should be exempt from criticism.

And when public money is set aside for a particular religious observance, the question should be asked: is this is a good use of that money? Was there better use, with more application for the wider Australian community, for what was spent getting four politicians to Rome and aiding an event put on by one of the wealthiest entities in the world?

The Atheist Foundation of Australia suggested that money could be put towards cancer research, something that has the potential to benefit all Australians regardless of their particular religious position. That statement attracted considerable anger from people identifying themselves as ‘people of faith’. I have to wonder, though – would there been half as much outrage if the suggestion had come from a different source – say, the Peter McCallum Cancer Research Centre?

The money is spent now, but the question remains. Is this sort of expenditure of public money appropriate, in a country where almost half of the population identifies as having no Christian belief, and nearly 20% no religious belief at all?

Or – and this is the cynical part – is all this government support simply about attracting tourist dollars in the form of pilgrims coming to visit Mary MacKillop’s tomb in Sydney, or her home town of Penola, South Australia?

I leave the question open.


11 Responses to Should government have funded MacKillop religious celebrations?

  1. SecularParty says:

    @theconsciencevote # We agree with your sentiments exactly. We tried to run in the Victorian Election but do not yet meet state based registration requirements so we ran a couple of independents. Next time we hope to have them run under the Secular Party of Australia.

  2. […] think that there is a place for government to support religion, the issue arises of favouritism. No Accounting for taste, William Bowe, The Poll BludgerMatthew Franklin of The Australian reports a […]

  3. […] think that there is a place for government to support religion, the issue arises of favouritism. No Accounting for taste, William Bowe, The Poll BludgerMatthew Franklin of The Australian reports a […]

  4. Mark says:

    What about things like Budda’s Birthday for example?While it is indeed a religious festival, it seems to now be very inclusive, and has become more of a family day out with interesting performances.

  5. lilacsigil says:

    I don’t have any problem with the ABC covering this specific event and some funding – it’s a historical event, of religious character. I hope that similar importance is attached to, say, a visit from the Dalai Lama or assisting Australians travelling to Mecca. And $1.5 million is not very much compared to how much we spent just getting athletes to the Commonwealth Games! (Disclosure: It’s also a tourism boom for my rural town, which is in between Melbourne and Penola!)

    In general, though, Christianity has a sort of “first in best dressed” status, and I think that needs to change. A secular society is not the same as an atheist society, though I say this from the POV of an atheist lesbian who benefits greatly from conservative churches not being in charge!

    • There’s no way our government would provide funds to assist pilgrimages to Mecca, or fund a big event for the Dalai Lama. It just doesn’t happen. Yet it’s very easy to get funding on all levels of government for Christian/Catholic events – it’s an imbalance that just shouldn’t exist.

      I’m particularly leery of government facilitating any given religion – it happens in state schools with so-called ‘religious education’, which is outrageous. The only way for a government to equally represent all forms of belief is to be absolutely impartial – either fund all, or fund none.

      Personally, I’m in favour of the latter. The less government gets involved in religion, the more comfortable I feel.

      • lilacsigil says:

        Well, that’s my point right there – if it’s great for regional areas and tourism to fund these cultural events (also things like historical preservation such as the Chinese cemetery at Ballarat) they should continue to do so, but not solely one kind of event.

        I also think religious education in state schools is totally wrong, as you mentioned in your original post, but this event is not compulsory, nor is it part of the education system.

  6. I meant ‘cynical’ in that the media coverage is all very reverent and lovely, far beyond ‘respect for belief’. It’s perhaps cynical of me to suggest that the government covered up an economic motivation with religious trappings.

    As for your other point – that true heroes should be celebrated – I agree wholeheartedly! Mary MacKillop’s deeds in life were amazing, and well worth celebrating – certainly far more than the mindless hero-worship given to sports people. If we spent more time honouring people who work for the common good, whether in terms of scientific progress, social reform, or whatever, it would be a wonderful thing.

    However … the money was not spent on a celebration for all Australians, but rather put towards a specific religious observance. That’s my issue here. It would be perfectly possible to fund a non-religious celebration of her work, particularly her stand against clerical child abuse. That would be accessible to all Australians, not a custom-designed event for a single group.

  7. Jess says:

    Atheist here, agreeing with Bill.

    We spend so much money on sportspeople and events (while neglecting, say, the paralympians) that I can’t really see much of a problem here.

    I don’t think Mary MacKillop is *just* a religious figure: she was a good person who did amazing things for the community. Yes, I’d prefer to see her celebrated in a manner that’s inclusive of everyone and not just “for” Catholics, but if paying her that respect means that others can take something from it and realise that it’s not just about being a public figure, but about being a good person, why not?

    How much have we spent on war and on political advertising and on funding private schools and bringing fundamentalist Christianity into state schools? What about the $600,000 or whatever it is per year Kevin Rudd and John Howard get for having been PMs? Didn’t we put money into Youth Day or whatever that big Catholic thing was up in Sydney a couple of years ago? I’d rather see money go towards recognising and honoring people who’ve actually done the community– particularly the marginalised– than towards stuff which encourages people to be selfish and which isn’t really “for everyone” anyway. (I don’t care about sports, I don’t think Aussie troops should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don’t feel that great about tax payer dollars being used to support private schools when some of us can’t even afford housing.)

    You are right, though: it’s religious, and yeah, we shouldn’t be doing it. But there are so many other problematic things that we’re funding so it’s really hard for me to get upset about this one.

    • This is my point, which I may have not made strongly enough in the blog itself. Why not celebrate her as a citizen who did good things for the whole community with an event accessible by all, rather than a specific religious observance?

      I think once the government starts privileging one religion over another in terms of who gets money, we enter murky waters.

  8. Bill says:

    Is it “cynical” to use the money as a tourism investment? It’s a drop in the bucket compared to what gets thrown at sports of all kinds, and it’s in celebration of someone who should be regarded as a true Australian hero, regardless of faith. Personally – and again, I say this quite aside from faith – I think more money should be spent celebrating people like Mary and less celebrating cricketers and footballers. Perhaps it might inspire others towards working for the greater good instead of their own self-aggrandisement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: