Prime Minister Gillard and the Politics of Faith

This article has been published by the Jakarta Post, 07/07/2010

Julia Gillard seems to be bound not only as the first female prime minister of Australia, but also to be the first unmarried prime minister who has publicly declared herself as a nonreligious person.

In many countries, gender, status and religion always become hot issues in politics, but Gillard seems to have broken all those taboos. She is a woman, unmarried and a nonbeliever.

While the first two issues might no longer be taboo in Western politics, the status of religion is still a crucial issue. We can’t forget how Barack Obama’s religion was strongly questioned during his presidential campaign.

He had to assure to the American public that he was neither an atheist or a Muslim. Religion does matter in the US.

In matters of religion and politics, Australia seems to follow suit the European style rather than the US.

Although some Australians were caught by surprise when Gillard announced her conviction on ABC Radio last week (June 30), the general view seems to be on her side.

A website polling conducted by The Australian last week might tell us the situation there. Two days after Gillard’s statement, the polling revealed that of 17,310 respondents, 65.57 percent did not care about Gillard’s faith.

Only 34.43 percent said that they were concerned about Gillard’s lack of religious faith.

There are indeed some concerns expressed by church leaders on the issue. Christian communities are surely not happy with Gillard’s public statement.

Peter Ziebell, a Lutheran Pastor, said that it was bad news for Australia. “If you are a leader of a country and you say you don’t believe in God, you can’t expect God to bless the country,” he said.

However, he admitted that he would not urge his followers to vote against her, as he preferred that religion shouldn’t be mixed with politics (The Chronicle, July 1).

Australians seem to have matured enough in the issue of religion and politics. They are more concerned with Gillard’s performance than her faith.

After all, the new prime minister has declared that despite her lack of belief in God, she is a great respecter of religions.

She admitted that she grew up in the Christian church and had once won a catechism for being able to memorize Bible verses.

I am truly excited by the issue, not only that it could change the landscape of Australian politics, particularly with regards to the issue of a state-religion relationship, but this also reveals how people, particularly religious communities, react against this unfavorable situation.

In many Asian countries, including Indonesia, religion is absolutely a crucial issue. No politicians would dare touch its sanctity.

What is important from Gillard’s audacious step is that she helped us see things clearly. First, it is important to be honest and is likewise important to show your principles. Not believing in God does not necessarily make a person immoral. You can still respect people and respect religious symbols while you are an atheist.

Atheism is still a controversial issue, even in liberal Western countries. Politicians tend to hide their beliefs, particularly if their belief is different from the majority of the people. People can accept differences in ideology or a political party, but they can hardly accept differences in religion.

In the US, for example, a presidential candidate would face difficulties if they were a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist. Even a Catholic is barely accepted in that predominantly Protestant country.

“Australians seem to have matured enough in the issue of religion and politics. They are more concerned with Gillard’s performance than her faith.”

Likewise, in Indonesia, although the constitution allows non-Muslims to become the head of state, it is unlikely that a Christian or a Hindu could become president.

The problem with the politics of faith is that people tend to be hypocritical of their own principle and are insincere to others. If people cannot accept who you are, it is natural that you hide what you believe (or don’t believe) from them.

At worst, you would show them something you don’t believe. The problem is if someone is encouraged to be hypocritical on a very sacred issue, they will easily do the same thing in other matters.

Second, what we could obviously learn from Gillard’s case is that faith or religion has less — if nothing at all — to do with one’s performance or behavior.

Morality can be based on secular principles and non-theistic philosophy. Religion is not the only source for morality.

People used to relate goodness with religion and evilness with atheism. If you are an atheist then you are an evil man.

Religion as such is good. The highest ethical formulations can be found in religious teachings. Religion will remain good as long as it stays in the ethical domain. What makes religion often look bad is its determination to enter the unholy domain such as politics.

History has given us a lot of lessons. The politicization of religion is not only bad for politics, but it is also bad for religion.

There are many good religious leaders who suddenly turn bad once they enter politics. People want to see their religion as holy. One way to keep it holy is to let it stay away from politics.

This has perhaps a long way to go for Indonesian politics. But, we have just learned a very good lesson from our Australian neighbor.