Anglican/Christian Prayers in the Parliaments of an Increasingly Secular and Religiously Diverse Australia
INTRODUCTION
Once again, we hear voices urging that sittings in our Parliaments, both Federal and State, should no longer begin with Christian prayers.
While the federal and all state parliaments continue this tradition, the ACT legislature no longer has prayers. Before he retired, Victorian Premier Dan Andrews made known his view that in their present form, parliamentary prayers were inappropriate in a multicultural and religiously plural society.
The current re-emergence of this issue comes from Parliamentarians who do not participate in parliamentary prayers or who argue that in their present form, the prayers in parliament are incompatible with the diverse nature of the electors they represent and the broader Australian society.
WHAT ARE THE PRAYERS
I will illustrate what Parliamentary prayers entail by reference to the prayers in the federal parliament.
In the House of Representatives held the commencement of a parliamentary day’s sitting, the Speaker reads a Church of England (Now Anglican Church) prayer.
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.
Parliamentarians present in the Chamber then join the speaker in reciting the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer.[1]
Our Father, which art in Heaven: Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
The prayer in the Senate is very similar, but I note that reversing the previous order of procedure in late 2022 the President of the Senate gives an acknowledgement of the country before reading—
Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations.
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.
Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
My focus is on whether prayers in their current format, the federal and similar prayers in state parliaments should continue. I do not propose to address in any detail questions of whether the current prayers in parliament are legal or constitutional as I suggest that the more appropriate question for public debate is whether prayers in parliament are appropriate regardless of whether they can be continued legally.
I immediately note that this is not a finely balanced debate. The arguments for the retention of prayers in parliament are not altogether persuasive. On a rational, rather than emotional, level their arguments appear to resonate with those determined to retain the longstanding dominant role of conservative Christianity and its influence on Australian politics. Their arguments need to also be viewed in the context of their religions, fast dwindling in their influence and their role as arbiters of morality and values in Australia.
For that reason, caution needs to be exercised when addressing self-appointed representatives of Christianity or of particular Christian churches, as it has been repeatedly shown that such ‘special interest’ groups do not represent those they claim to represent.
In particular, it is a demonstrable fact that those who identify with particular and, most notably, the major Christian religions increasingly do not necessarily accept various teachings of the churches. Perhaps the most glaring of recent examples relate to minuscule church attendance, support for marriage equality and cohabitation outside of marriage. On this basis it is crucial to distinguish between the views of those who identify with a particular religion and the official views of the church and even more so with almost invariably conservative lobby groups and think tanks set up to influence law and policy
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETENTION OF PRAYERS IN PARLIAMENT
The debate over prayers in parliament is being painted as an attack by secularists on ‘Australia’s long standing Christian tradition’ and more generally on religion.
- Because it has been the Custom and Christian Tradition for centuries
Those who argue for the retention of prayers in parliament in their current format say that the ritual should be retained because it has been the custom for centuries and is a part of our Judaeo-Christian tradition.
It is true that parliamentary prayers have long been a feature of our British heritage and early Australian legislatures. (See Chronology of Prayers in the Australian Parliament) However, it is also worth noting that some Australian colonies granted independence in the mid-19th century chose not to continue this practice in the name of separation of church and state. In the decade preceding federation, concerted attempts were made to remove the separation of church and state. These included the proposal to include a constitutional requirement of parliamentary prayer. This, like most of the proposals, was not successful. In fact, the notion of constitutionally mandated prayers in federal parliament was ridiculed and denounced by several prominent colonial politicians. The insertion of a preamble with a reference to almighty God was ostensibly the only pro-religion reform that was adopted. It is important to note that opposition to the inclusion of references to God and parliamentary prayers in the constitution was championed by small religions, most notably the 5000-member strong Seventh-day Adventists, who feared the consequences of a lack of separation of church and state. They succeeded in defeating the prayer proposal but failed to prevent the reference to Almighty God in the preamble, even though they succeeded in neutralising the potential effect of the preamble and reinforced the separation of church and state through the insertion of section 116, which provides—
The Commonwealth shall not make any laws 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.
Nevertheless, from the time the federal Parliament first sat in mid-1901, prayers have been a part of parliamentary standing orders.
The existence of a longstanding tradition of Church of England/Anglican Christian prayers cannot and should not be considered a serious ground for its retention, for many reasons. Most obviously, the length of time a ritual has existed says little, if anything, about the appropriateness of retaining it. Societal changes have been significant. The role of church and religion and its role in politics is distinctly different. Indeed, I would argue that long-standing rituals involving religious involvement in politics almost invariably call for reappraisal.
- Because We Are a Christian Nation
Those supporting the retention of parliamentary prayers have argued that despite the increasing number of Australians who do not identify with a specific religion, most Australians still identify with a Christian church. This, they urged, meant that Australia continued to be a Christian nation. Although this argument continues to be heard, Australia can no longer be said to be a Christian nation.
The 2011 census revealed that 61.1 per cent of Australians identified with a Christian religion. By 2016, this figure fell to a bare majority of 52.1 per cent and even further to a minority of 43.9 per cent in 2021. Despite this clear and significant drop in the number of Australians identifying with Christian religions, it would appear to be fair to suggest that Australia is a secular or at least not a Christian nation. However, numerous Christian-right writers continue to labour to argue that official statistics don’t paint the whole picture.
However, the significant decline in the membership of Christian churches has caused some proponents of the retention of prayers to present their argument in terms of religion/faith (of any kind) versus secularity. Once again, this argument, as I go on to argue below, does not withstand scrutiny, other than perhaps to convince those who reject the separation of church and state and believe that the election of politicians of faith or aligned with religion is implicitly in the interest of the nation – but then, Donald Trump and Scott Morisson come to mind.
Australians do not hold politicians in the highest regard. For that reason, we’re unlikely to oppose a procedure that asks them to reflect on the solemnity of their work. However, just as we have accepted that swearing an oath on the Bible is not an appropriate means of encouraging reflection on telling the truth for everyone, so we need to recognise that a Protestant-Christian prayer is not an appropriate means for solemn reflection on parliamentary work, for all politicians.
A continuation of the Christian heritage of prayer in parliament would also have symbolic inferences inviting several questions. Is Christianity intertwined with politics in this country? Is Protestant Christianity (despite its dwindling numbers) still the heart and soul of this nation? Does it remain the norm even when we make provision for others?
Over the past two decades, Australia has undergone huge changes in the profiles of those holding the most senior positions in politics and the judiciary. In the first decade of this century, I discovered that in one state, every Supreme Court justice held a position with the Anglican Church of Australia. I suspect that the religious affiliations of our politicians would also have predominantly been with mainstream Christianity. This is simply not the case today, even though self-appointed representatives of Christianity will tell you otherwise. Unlike the United States, Australian politicians hoping to be elected, do not have to be Christians or pretend to be such. (Maybe, with the exception of one or two electorates).
Another way of viewing the changes between religious institutions and Australian politicians is to see politicians having been wooed by powerful churches that commanded the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population. These same churches and lobby groups working for or in the name of the churches are continuing to seek to influence politicians, although their views have been shown to no longer align with the dominant views in society. The failure of the Christian right to exert the influence to which they had been accustomed, leads them to present themselves as persecuted minorities whose rights (such as prayers in parliament) are being trampled on by increasingly secular Australia.
- Because it’s Legal
Proponents of the retention of parliamentary prayers are quick to point out that it is parliamentarians themselves who decide procedure in their Houses of Parliament, and that irrespective of any legal rulings on whether parliamentary prayers are held to constitute the ‘establishing any religion or ‘imposing any religious observance’ as Section 116, only prohibits the making of ‘ laws’.
The Constitution also expressly states that the Commonwealth is not to make any laws ‘for imposing any religious observance.’ However, proponents defend this limitation on commonwealth powers on the grounds that no member is compelled to participate. Indeed, it has long been the practice for Members not willing to participate to wait outside of the chamber. Even those attending are required to pray, as the President of the Senate expressly illustrates by inviting Senators to pray or reflect in their own way on the responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations. This sounds accommodating, except that these alternate forms of reflection and prayer are undertaken while the President reads the prayer. In other words, the invitation extends to ignoring the president’s reading and silently praying a different prayer or engaging in secular reflection.
While parliamentary prayer may be legal, I suggest, that it is not appropriate as it requires an increasing number of members to identify as unable or unwilling to comply with part of the parliamentary process. This is not appropriate and is discriminatory as has been held with respect to taking the oath, where rather than having to indicate an unwillingness to take the oath and request to take a solemn declaration or another form of fact, everyone is now asked how they would wish to give their evidence. Swearing an oath on the Bible is no longer the norm from which you ask to be excused.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST RETENTION OF PRAYERS IN PARLIAMENT
- Not Representative of Australia’s Diversity
Where once, prayers in parliament may have reflected the values and religious affiliation of our society it is no longer the case, nor has it been for some years.
The religious allegiance of the Australian population of almost four million people in 1901 was entirely unlike that of Australia today, numbering some 26.5 million today.
Only one per cent of the almost entirely Anglo-Celtic Australia in 1901 identified with no religion or other Christian religions. Forty per cent were Anglican, 23 per cent were Catholics, and 34 per cent identified with other Christian denominations.
In contrast. only 54 per cent of the current population is Anglo-Celtic, 25 per cent is non-European, and 18 per cent is non-Anglo-Celtic European. In the 2021 census, 43.9 per cent of Australians identified with Christianity, and 38.9 per cent stated no religion. Of Christian religions, the Anglican Church (formerly the Church of England) was shown to have shrunk to account for only 9.8 per cent of the population. The largest Christian religion, the Catholic Church, had also shrunk, with only 20 per cent of Australians identifying with it. Around 10 per cent of Australians identify with religions other than Christianity. While small in number, proportionally, they are the fastest-growing religions.
The most significant change, when compared to 1901, is that the second largest (and recent trends, suggest, soon to become Australia’s largest) ‘religion’ with which almost 40 per cent of Australians identify is ‘no religion’.
Prayers in parliament do not accommodate non-believers, non-Christian religions and, to a lesser extent, Catholics and some other Christian religions. The extent to which non-Anglican Christians are accommodated by the parliamentary prayers ritual is that participation is not compulsory. It has been said that some non-Christian parliamentarians are not opposed to the retention of the prayers. Whether Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or other non-Christian Members of Parliament are willing to put up with this practice is irrelevant. Some non-Christian religions, we are told, also put up with Christmas, Easter, and other Christian holy days, yet this doesn’t justify our failure to recognise other religious and secular traditions of non-Christian Australians.
- Not Representative of the Diversity of Parliamentarians
Prayers in Parliament are not only inappropriate and not reflective of the composition of our society but also not representative of the diversity of our parliamentarians.
Currently, around one in four parliamentarians is of non-European ancestry, eleven parliamentarian politicians of Indigenous backgrounds, there are two Muslim Ministers, and there are ten parliamentarians of Asian background.
Clearly, our nation’s increasingly diverse population is represented in parliament by an increasing number of politicians from non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. In a much whiter and Anglican/Catholic Christian Australia some non-Anglo-Celtic politicians used to anglicise their names and be seen attending establishment church services in order to blend in and be accepted by the ruling elite and electors. In a multicultural, multi-faith and increasingly secular Australia that is no longer required for success in politics.
Such diversity, itself dictates a reassessment of the relevance of parliamentary prayers.
CONCLUSION
In a country without an established state church, where the constitution arguably appears to either suggest or actually impose a separation between church and state by prohibiting laws ‘for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observance’. where four out of ten people say they have no religious allegiance, and where Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, the two houses of the national parliament representing all Australians begin their days of sitting with the reading of an Anglican prayer followed by the recitation of the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer.
In joining other calls for the ending of the current practice of prayers being said in the Australian federal parliament and in all state parliaments, I do so to recognise that in our society, religious or secular beliefs and values are to be accorded equal respect rather than be grudgingly tolerated. Those who wish to preserve the status quo and thus retain the privileged status of their religion/s represent small, fading or fringe conservative religions that want to be recognised as ongoing custodians of Christian traditions such as parliamentary prayers.
My specific submission is not original, nor does it propose something that would be difficult to implement. I simply support the proposal that at the start of each day’s sitting members be invited to pause and reflect in silence on the solemn and important work to be undertaken. Whether anyone prays would be a matter for them, and no one should feel excluded or made to feel like an exception to the norm.
In closing, I would like to emphasise that advocating the discontinuation of prayers in Australian parliaments is not an attack on religion but rather a recognition and accommodation of the diversity of religious and secular values and beliefs in Australia. It is also a strengthening of the separation of church and state to ensure that one or more religions do not become the governing or preferred religions purporting to represent all beliefs and values at the expense of religious and secular pluralism.
[1] At the time of the prayer’s introduction into parliament, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne objected to this ‘distinctly Protestant’ choice. See Luke Beck’s ‘Prayers in Parliament and the Constitution’ Constitutional Critique, The University of Sydney.
