Australian Reference Point

I wrote this response to articles in The Weekend Australian (2/3/2024) addressing the problem of Australia’s lack of a common reference point.

Well done, Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan for raising this core issue - which Australian public discourse has been avoiding since WW2 - What is Australia’s agreed reference point, for legislation and politics, public life, and private enterprise? They wrote that our lack of this reference point results in fragmentation, culture wars, victim-entitlement, and a lack of investment confidence. I agree.

But let’s take the next step and identify the most obvious solution. Somebody has to say it: let’s officially nominate the Bible as Australia‘s reference point for national policy. Make it our moral compass when deciding laws, values, government processes.

Morality is what societies’ laws are all about - what’s good & bad, allowable & not. But which moral set are we using? And why that set?

There is a stronger case for the Bible than for any other moral code.

1. The Bible was the assumed reference point at Federation.
   Federal founder Henry Parkes said, “Our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution… are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief.” 99% of people claimed some form of Christianity, founded upon the Bible. So it would be in step with Federation to simply name that which was assumed at the time.
2. The Bible upholds proper Separation of Church and State.
   Yes, no Church institution should control the State, as such power is likely to corrupt the Church's ability to provide moral guidance. Nor should the State interfere with the churches' moral mandate, or tell believers what to believe.
   In the drafting of our Constitution, ‘secular’ meant a person's religion was not to preclude anyone from politics, and back then it really meant that Anglicans, Catholics and anyone else could engage in politics [See Chavura & Tregenza, 2019, 'The 'secular' settlement and Australian political thought', Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 272-287. https://doi.org/ ] ‘Secular’ government meant inclusive, not exclusive, of religious people. And the Bible was the general reference point, rather than any religious institution - Catholic, Anglican or any other - which could be corrupted by various forms of power or coercion. Just the brute facts within the Bible itself are enough of a reference for the public discourse.
   
3. The loss of Biblical reference point is an obvious problem.
   After WW2, with increased immigration, and the Communist threat, public figures began to describe our government as ‘democracy.’ Democracy means “people rule.” Overt Christian references decreased and became merely one view among many. And no evaluation of other reference points was undertaken. So after decades of broadcast reinforcement of self determination, many drifted into the belief that we are our own reference points - which of course is no reference point at all. Consequently our society now has many tribes pulling in different directions according to their own reference points, often bad ones.
4. What else compares to the Bible?
   Evaluate the contenders. Communist Manifesto? Mao’s Red Book? The Uluru Statement? The Koran? Past alternative reference points produced social projects that inevitably dehumanised others, often gruesomely. Gramsci’s/Marcuse’s long march through the institutions has splintered societies into raging self-interests, devoid of moral answers. Many of their modern followers try to denounce the Bible, but they do so ultimately because the Bible protects the rest of us from their own plans to dominate.
5. The Bible is morally good.
   “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” according to founder of American democracy, John Adams [quoted by Paul Kelly (2/3/24).] If democracy is to lead anywhere good, then the people need an agreed, morally good reference point such as the Bible. Therefore students must study it, at least enough to understand its gist. Political parties need theologians to interpret it well. Media must work within its parameters, and convey it to inform people well enough to vote using it. The public domain can still entertain other ideas, but it must maintain the Bible as the reference point for moral decisions.
6. The Bible is the only reference that allows others to freely express divergent opinions.
   Whilst reserving the priority of making itself clear, it does not endorse forcing people to follow it, it rather asks people to choose it on its merits. It alone has the injunction to allow others to speak, while still being the common reference point, whereas every other ideology eventually excludes others from the discourse. It is truly cross-cultural, able to fulfil and uplift every culture, being about the Creator of them all.
7. The Bible has a proven record in social and political history.
   Magna Carta limited the King’s power to “under God.” It introduced the rule of law. It introduced natural law (the way things should be) as a guiding principle for legislation. And, ever since, we have seen societies improve or worsen according to how closely they follow this Biblical vision. Corruption comes as we stray from it. And even atheists endorse it as a force for social good, like Douglas Murray who “calls himself a Christian atheist” (2/3/24.) Or Dave Rubin, “The eternal truths told for thousands of years through the Biblical stories are the rudder that keeps us moving forward during the storm.” (Mahlburg Cross & Culture p90.) Vishal Mangalwadi makes the case extensively in his book, The Book that Made Your World: how the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilisation.
8. The Bible includes spiritual dimensions of reality.
   Most people still experience & appreciate spiritual realities, even in secularised nations. Such dimensions are part of reality that we ought never ignore.
9. The Bible gives clarity.
   Regaining such a robust consensus point would give our policy-makers confidence to make international decisions, about how we trade - what the right things are, and why we do them.
10. It is possible to name the Bible as our reference point politically. 
    PNG recently did it. We could too, openly call it a Bible-referenced Democracy. Consider, what if we do? Then also consider, what if we don’t?

It’s better late than never for Australia to openly discuss, evaluate and decide upon the most beneficial reference point for us as a nation: the one that federation rightly assumed in the first place, the one from which the further we drift the worse we become. If you can propose a better one, make your case. But if not, then let’s name the Bible, stop the drift into further fracture or bloody error, and come together around the best reference point for democracy.
​
What if we discussed a referendum on that!