12 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012
of contemporary influences, including
globalization and the rise of plural-faith
communities. In seminars, I illustrate my point
with a simple example. In March 2006, my
local newspaper reported that the Baulkham
Hills Council had passed a motion to pay local
clergy $250 to lead the prayer at the start of each
council meeting. This report led to some
controversy in the letters column, with one
outraged local declaring that it “flies in the face
of the constitutional separation of church and
state” and sets a “dangerous precedent.”45
The question I ask is “Who would lead the
council prayer under various philosophical
frameworks?” In the case of sacralization, the
answer would be relatively clear—the local
minister of the established church (in the UK
this normally would be the Anglican vicar)46 or
mainstream faith (less clear because in Australia
this might mean the largest grouping—now
Catholics, or mainstream denomination—
Christianity, which might mean having turns or
perhaps the largest local faith group might be
invited). Under the third option listed above,
multifaith promotion, the seemingly simple task
of appointing a faith representative to lead the
prayer gives rise to a number of questions:
Would a representative of all faith groups be
given a turn to lead the prayer? Must this
include small groups, such as Wicca47 or
Scientology, to avoid charges of discrimination
against New Religious Movements (or minority
faiths)? Should the offer be based on the
relative size of local congregations—so that
smaller groups are represented less often?
The problem of organization becomes a
logistical nightmare if the policy of structural
pluralism is followed (wherein belief systems
equivalent to religious faiths are granted
equivalent rights). So would the humanists be
given a chance to lead the prayer? Perhaps they
might. Would a Jedi knight be asked to lead the
prayer? Astonishingly, the answer might well
45 “Stop Pay for Prayer,” Hills News, 14 March 2006.
46 Although under a policy of extended toleration, clergy or
representatives of other faith groups might be given a turn
47 “In a court of law, taking the earlier Scientology case as a
precedent, it would be virtually impossible to state that witchcraft
as practiced today is not a religion.” Lynne Hume, “Witchcraft
and the Law in Australia,” Journal of Church and State, 37 (1995),
p. 144.
be Yes!48 Even more perplexing: Would atheists
be given a chance to lead a nonprayer in
deference to their competing worldview? I
suspect not.
To those who see tradition and heritage as
important factors in the development of policy
decisions that normally reflect mainstream
values, these questions seem silly. Who on earth
could object to a simple request to ask a local
clergyman to open council meetings? The same
bewildered attitude is apparent in controversies
over civic display of Christmas icons—such as
the crib. However, these traditionalists have not
reckoned sufficiently on the promotion
internationally of regimes of nondiscrimination,
the elasticity of the definition of the word
religion, the ability of lawyers to add layers of
complication, and, most importantly, on the fact
that in most Western democracies we now have
multifaith societies.
So one answer to the question of who should be
asked to lead the council prayer is “none of the
above”—and there should be no religious
prayer. This practical solution is in conformity
with a well-considered theory of secularization,
or separation of church and state.
The Best Fit for China?
I have noted above that China is seen to sit at the
“far Left” of the spectrum running from
secularization to sacralization. This
characterization might be a little too simplistic.
By endorsing a number of official religious
groupings, while asserting the right of the state
to regulate deviant groups as required (and at the
same time requiring all Party members to be
atheists), China is borrowing something from
both strategies. However, because religious
groups receive little (and very selective) state
support and are otherwise subject to intrusive
state restrictions, the official policy in China
might be characterized as tending to a severe
form of secularization.
Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s
Republic of China (1982) states as follows:
48 “…these cinema-based religious responses … should be treated
as spiritual responses.” Gary Bouma, Australian Soul: Religion
and Spirituality in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge
University Press, 2006), p. 62.
of contemporary influences, including
globalization and the rise of plural-faith
communities. In seminars, I illustrate my point
with a simple example. In March 2006, my
local newspaper reported that the Baulkham
Hills Council had passed a motion to pay local
clergy $250 to lead the prayer at the start of each
council meeting. This report led to some
controversy in the letters column, with one
outraged local declaring that it “flies in the face
of the constitutional separation of church and
state” and sets a “dangerous precedent.”45
The question I ask is “Who would lead the
council prayer under various philosophical
frameworks?” In the case of sacralization, the
answer would be relatively clear—the local
minister of the established church (in the UK
this normally would be the Anglican vicar)46 or
mainstream faith (less clear because in Australia
this might mean the largest grouping—now
Catholics, or mainstream denomination—
Christianity, which might mean having turns or
perhaps the largest local faith group might be
invited). Under the third option listed above,
multifaith promotion, the seemingly simple task
of appointing a faith representative to lead the
prayer gives rise to a number of questions:
Would a representative of all faith groups be
given a turn to lead the prayer? Must this
include small groups, such as Wicca47 or
Scientology, to avoid charges of discrimination
against New Religious Movements (or minority
faiths)? Should the offer be based on the
relative size of local congregations—so that
smaller groups are represented less often?
The problem of organization becomes a
logistical nightmare if the policy of structural
pluralism is followed (wherein belief systems
equivalent to religious faiths are granted
equivalent rights). So would the humanists be
given a chance to lead the prayer? Perhaps they
might. Would a Jedi knight be asked to lead the
prayer? Astonishingly, the answer might well
45 “Stop Pay for Prayer,” Hills News, 14 March 2006.
46 Although under a policy of extended toleration, clergy or
representatives of other faith groups might be given a turn
47 “In a court of law, taking the earlier Scientology case as a
precedent, it would be virtually impossible to state that witchcraft
as practiced today is not a religion.” Lynne Hume, “Witchcraft
and the Law in Australia,” Journal of Church and State, 37 (1995),
p. 144.
be Yes!48 Even more perplexing: Would atheists
be given a chance to lead a nonprayer in
deference to their competing worldview? I
suspect not.
To those who see tradition and heritage as
important factors in the development of policy
decisions that normally reflect mainstream
values, these questions seem silly. Who on earth
could object to a simple request to ask a local
clergyman to open council meetings? The same
bewildered attitude is apparent in controversies
over civic display of Christmas icons—such as
the crib. However, these traditionalists have not
reckoned sufficiently on the promotion
internationally of regimes of nondiscrimination,
the elasticity of the definition of the word
religion, the ability of lawyers to add layers of
complication, and, most importantly, on the fact
that in most Western democracies we now have
multifaith societies.
So one answer to the question of who should be
asked to lead the council prayer is “none of the
above”—and there should be no religious
prayer. This practical solution is in conformity
with a well-considered theory of secularization,
or separation of church and state.
The Best Fit for China?
I have noted above that China is seen to sit at the
“far Left” of the spectrum running from
secularization to sacralization. This
characterization might be a little too simplistic.
By endorsing a number of official religious
groupings, while asserting the right of the state
to regulate deviant groups as required (and at the
same time requiring all Party members to be
atheists), China is borrowing something from
both strategies. However, because religious
groups receive little (and very selective) state
support and are otherwise subject to intrusive
state restrictions, the official policy in China
might be characterized as tending to a severe
form of secularization.
Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s
Republic of China (1982) states as follows:
48 “…these cinema-based religious responses … should be treated
as spiritual responses.” Gary Bouma, Australian Soul: Religion
and Spirituality in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge
University Press, 2006), p. 62.
