WHAT does it mean for a country to be secular?

And is that how Australia should now be categorised?

The heated debates over issues such as same sex marriage and religion in schools have touched a raw nerve in Australian society.

The Border Mail published 15 letters to the editor in June alone regarding those two issues and others where religion and society meet, prompting rigorous debate and sometimes personal abuse to the letter writer in online posts.

People on both sides of the debate have had their say, some calling for a referendum on same sex marriage, others arguing that the Bible and Christianity no longer plays any part in Australian society.

Church leaders have written to the paper, some standing up for the institution of marriage while others have called for calm and reasoned discussion.

Reverend Peter McKeague, rector of the Anglican parish of northern Albury, is one of the latter, writing a letter earlier in the month suggesting that same-sex marriage would inevitably be introduced in Australia.

He even argued that a child’s right to both a mother and father should be left out of the discussion.

“Given the diverse nature of relationships and family structures in today’s world, that ship has sailed,” Rev McKeague wrote.

“This is a fundamental change that we are making to our society and surely changing something that is part of the bedrock of society deserves better than shallow sloganeering.”

His request, in the meantime, is for reasoned and respectful debate.

However, that has not been evident online, with people posting vehement comments within hours of the letter being published.

“‘Gay marriage’ isn’t about equality — don’t be fooled. Everything this is, is designed to attack the monotheistic religions, with Christianity as the main target. How to silence dissent? Easy — make laws to attack the bedrock of our society (marriage), rip away everything that made this country stable and prosperous, attack its religious foundations, mock common sense, replace that bedrock with shifting sands driven by a plague of locust-like opportunistic bottom feeders ...”

On the other side — “Dear Peter there has been plenty of debate but some members of the church like yourself will not listen to the truth, you keep throwing up the same old garbage about a child needs a mother and a father. Why you keep using that is untrue. So let’s get to the truth of the matter which seems to elude you and other right-wing members who have lost their compassion and kindness for all people to be equal.”

Rev McKeague is not surprised by the polarisation of the debate.

“(For) a lot of those who are not supporters of same sex marriage, any criticism of that agenda just brings howls of intolerance and accusations of homophobia, which may well be true but it’s no way to have a debate,” he says.

The arguments are also illustrations of the change to Australia’s identity, which Rev McKeague describes as post-Christian and very multi-cultural.

“I think some Christians grieve for the status and influence of the old days,” he says.

He admits there were low points to those days — Christendom at times has been oppressive and, much more recently, the sexual abuse by clergy and the subsequent cover-up has done “grievous harm to the credibility of the church”. 

“It has tarred us all by the brush of what was done when the vast majority of clergy has never been part of any such thing and are as horrified as anybody and shamed by it,” he says.

“I think that’s playing into the way the society is willing to listen. 

“In some areas, particularly in relation to moral and ethical issues, while the church has deep wisdom, we have been mortally wounded by such scandals. 

“The church has got a lot of work to do to regain credibility and to be listened to again.”

In the meantime, Rev McKeague is frustrated that Christians who speak publicly are regarded as trying to impose their values.

“People who criticise or have a different opinion, are they not also trying to convince people or contribute to the debate?” he asks.

What saddens Rev McKeague is that the Christian heritage as the foundation of Australian society, culture and law is now being disregarded by some.

He’s not expecting that heritage to be the ticket to privilege for churches or Christians.

“But that heritage and the fact that we are a democratic society gives everybody the right to participate,” he says.

“I don’t think we should be any more privileged than the Islamic society or the humanist society. 

“The great thing about the current situation is that there is a rich range of views. 

“We struggle to come to a common mind on such matters but let’s have a decent debate and respect the fact that people have genuine views.”

Charles Sturt University senior lecturer in law Bede Harris argues that Australian law is not grounded in Christianity.

He points to the time of federation, when there was a significant division socially and politically between the Catholics and Protestants in Australia.

That division influenced the writing of Section 116, which prohibits the Commonwealth parliament from discriminating on the grounds of religion. 

“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,” Section 116 reads.

Dr Harris describes Australia as a secular country because there is no overt religious discrimination or support for one religion over another. 

“But I suppose more broadly speaking there may be an impression that the values of Australia are broadly Christian values — and of course there is vast disagreement on how one would define those,” he says.

As a Christian himself, Dr Harris is actually in favour of same sex marriage.

But that is not necessarily about religion, it’s because he would rather government pull out of matters relating to personal decisions.

“The general principle ought to be one that the dignity of the individual entitles them to make decisions,” he says.

Unlike the US with its bill of rights, Dr Harris says Australia doesn’t have a rights culture.

“So the whole debate revolves around what an individual thinks the position ought to be, not what the human entitlement of the individual is,” he says.

“It’s a very pragmatic and anti-philosophical approach that the media, politicians and the public take.”

Ultimately though, legislative decisions about such personal matters won’t be made according to Australia’s Christian heritage or even what might be perceived as the majority view on an issue.

“Even if you were to adopt a crude majority view of it, both the parties are terrified of losing marginal seats and therefore won’t commit to it,” Dr Harris says, of same sex marriage in particular.

“It’s really a very sad indictment on how unprincipled politics is — that a handful of seats in western Sydney and a couple of rural seats in Victoria, which are very marginal, and there seems to be a counter to the majority [will hold the power].

“Retaining government overrides principle or justice.”

Albury councillor David Thurley, who describes himself as a rationalist or secular humanist, is also concerned about influences on Australian politics but for different reasons.

“Quite frankly, every public survey that has ever been done shows upwards of 60 or 70 per cent of people support gay marriage,” he says.

“But if you did a survey in the electorate of Farrer, you would get a different view, this is a bit of a right-wing area. 

“We tend to espouse a hard line on drugs — lock them up.

“We don’t have a more thinking and tolerant way to look at problems. 

“The war on drugs is a classic (example of that) and a total bloody failure.” 

Cr Thurley goes on to compare the cost of jailing someone for a year — about $120,000 — with putting that money into social workers to support families and avoid delinquency.

How is that relevant to religion and politics?

“In the same way that there are loud voices on the gay marriage side, there are equally loud voices on the Christian side — people like Fred Nile, extreme religious groups who have a very narrow view of the world,” Cr Thurley says.

“There are matters where religious people can have a point of view, which should be listened to, but it should not drown out other views.”

Cr Thurley actually grew up in church, attending Sunday school every week.

But then he became interested in science and started asking difficult questions about Noah’s ark, for example, that he found too difficult to reconcile.

“I just can’t believe this stuff, I don’t see how it’s affecting my life,” he says, of his thoughts at the time.

“I can still be a good person without it so I slowly walked away from it and went a different way.”

While he doesn’t believe there is a god, he doesn’t align himself with atheists — partly because of Richard Dawkins’ more ridiculous statements. 

Now he’s a member of the rationalist society of Australia.

And yet two of his children have taken different paths — one son took his young family to Nepal for three years on mission and a daughter is a member of a Sydney Pentecostal church who now doesn’t talk to anyone else in the family.

“This is a travesty of religion, a perversion of religion,” he says, of that estranged relationship.

“Jesus Christ didn’t say that, he said to honour thy father and thy mother.”

Cr Thurley says it doesn’t help that Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a devout Catholic, makes public statements on personal matters from birth control to sex before marriage.

“A statement of principle (rather than personal doctrines), that’s what I want,” Cr Thurley says.

Majority rules? 

It’s clearly not that simple.