{"id":14770,"date":"2024-08-31T13:35:39","date_gmt":"2024-08-31T03:35:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=14770"},"modified":"2026-03-31T13:45:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T02:45:38","slug":"andrew-leighs-rose-coloured-religious-glasses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2024\/08\/31\/andrew-leighs-rose-coloured-religious-glasses\/","title":{"rendered":"Andrew Leigh\u2019s rose-coloured religious glasses"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andrew Leigh, who grew up in a religious family, may now be a self-described atheist, but he views religion through rose-coloured glasses.<\/span><\/p>\n

As he toured the country to discuss his ambitions for boosting philanthropy in recent years, the assistant minister for charities often quoted American social scientist Robert Putnam \u2013 to whom Dr Leigh was once an understudy \u2013 in claiming that being religious and going to church simply made people \u201cnicer\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

He told one audience last year<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat matters most for communitarians is that attending a religious service has often been a gateway into volunteering or donating. Those who attend a religious service are more likely to volunteer, even excluding their religious volunteering. They\u2019re more likely to donate, even excluding their religious donations. As Robert Putnam in his book <\/span><\/i>American Grace<\/span> puts it, attending a religious service just makes you a nicer person. So the decline in religious participation matters to the community, as well.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No doubt many people would find it perplexing that Dr Leigh so frequently quotes a 15-year-old book from America in making the case for the benefits of religious life in modern Australia.<\/span><\/p>\n

Putting aside for a second all the abuse and financial scandals that have engulfed faith communities in recent decades, consider how conservative religious leaders and lobbyists have spearheaded opposition to many positive social policy advancements that have made modern Australian society vastly better, and more compassionate and caring. Many of those nicer religious folk tried their best to block same-sex marriage and voluntary assisted dying laws.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr Leigh\u2019s views on religion provide an interesting backdrop at a time when religious lobbyists are putting intense pressure on the Albanese government on a number of fronts \u2013 and particularly in Dr Leigh\u2019s portfolios.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since late last year, religious leaders have mounted an extraordinary scare campaign in the media against recommendations \u2013 first proposed in November and then confirmed in July \u2013 of the independent Productivity Commission.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Faith groups branded proposed reforms to religious charities and tax-deductibility status for religious activities as <\/span>\u201ca direct attack on faith\u201d<\/span><\/a> (National Catholic Education Commission) and described them as demonstrating \u201ca clear anti-religion agenda\u201d (Freedom for Faith). The <\/span>Australian Christian Lobby even suggested<\/span><\/a> in a submission that the Productivity Commission was motivated by an \u201catheistic hostility to faith\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

In its final report, the Commission provided well-reasoned justifications for removal of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status to the school building funds which <\/span>benefit mostly wealthy private religious schools<\/span><\/a>, and also for removal of DGR for religious activities in government schools.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The government, however, was not so interested in the expert advice of the Productivity Commission on these matters. Almost as soon as the report had been released, Dr Leigh ruled out any changes to DGR status for school building funds and religious activities in government schools.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Commission also <\/span>recommended the removal of Basic Religious Charities<\/span><\/a> \u2013 charities that are exempt from the governance standards and financial reporting requirements that apply to all others \u2013 in order to \u201cenhance regulatory consistency and public transparency\u201d. The government is yet to announce its position on this issue. But, unsurprisingly, religious lobbyists are already demanding that the government continue to recognise their charities as <\/span>\u201cspecial\u201d and to be \u201cgiven due respect\u201d<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Throughout this year, religious leaders have also been running a scare campaign opposing proposed changes to the religion question in the Census. It so happens that the minister responsible for the Census is Dr Leigh.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Catholic Church hierarchy has been demanding the Albanese government intervene in the independent process of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Having conducted a two-year public consultation and heard the community’s concerns about the inherent bias in the religion question, the <\/span>ABS is proposing to reformulate the question<\/span><\/a> \u2013 changing it from \u2018What is the person\u2019s religion?\u2019 to \u2018Does the person have a religion?\u2019. The ABS has told key stakeholders it intends to test the new model this September.<\/span><\/p>\n

Just this week, Dr Leigh sparked anger in the LGBTIQ community when he announced the government would not be including planned questions on sexual orientation or intersex variations in the next Census. According to a report in the <\/span>Sydney Morning Herald<\/span><\/i>, two Labor MPs angered by the decision said the government <\/span>feared a backlash from faith groups<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr Leigh\u2019s views on religion provide an interesting backdrop at a time when religious lobbyists are putting intense pressure on the Albanese government on a number of fronts \u2013 and particularly in Dr Leigh\u2019s portfolios.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The \u2018Census \u2013 Not Religious?\u2019 campaign<\/a> \u2013 which has been leading the push for reform of the religious question \u2013 <\/span>has sought confirmation from Dr Leigh<\/span><\/a> on whether the government\u2019s announcement would affect the ABS\u2019 testing of the proposed religion question. While federal governments have, in the past, removed proposed \u2018topics\u2019 from Censuses, it is understood there are no grounds upon which a government can interfere in how the ABS actually asks questions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Whether or not the ABS removes the bias from the question, the key headline from the 2026 question on religion will likely be the continued rapid decline of Christianity and rise of Australians identifying as not religious. On the current trend, ‘no religion’ will overtake ‘Christianity’ for the first time, with Christians set to make up below 40 per cent of the population and non-religious Australians to comprise more than 40 per cent. One study from 2021 suggested removal of the bias from the question could result in an <\/span>increase of up to 11 per cent for \u2018no religion\u2019<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

At their peril, governments at all levels will continue to ignore the voices of non-religious Australians in many policy areas. No longer will it be tenable \u2013 if it is not already \u2013 for governments to continue privileging Christianity and religion in all kinds of areas of public life and policymaking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Increasingly, elected representatives and communities are telling their local councils and state and federal parliaments that they do not want formal meetings to start with acts of Christian worship.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the charities sector, the federal government will have to explain why it recognises the ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose in and of itself when so many Australians have voted with their feet and discarded religion.<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Rationalist Society of Australia has made this point to Dr Leigh<\/span><\/a> and has called for the government to, at the very least, address the religious-based discrimination in the charities system by either removing ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose, or by providing non-religious or pro-secular organisations \u2013 such as rationalists, humanists, atheists and secularists \u2013 with equal treatment in advancing their worldviews.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Past comments by Dr Leigh provide little reason for hope. In a <\/span>2019 podcast interview with Christian apologist John Dickson<\/span><\/a>, Dr Leigh backed keeping ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose, justifying his position on the belief that faith-based organisations do more good than bad for the community.<\/span><\/p>\n

“A tax concession has been there for a long time. And I think it serves an important social purpose, just as I think religious organisations serve that local purpose in our community. Now, most Australians won’t share the theological views of most organisations. These religious organisations, after all, have theological views that are, generally, in direct contradiction with one another. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t see society as being richer for having their involvement in our community life, just as we see society for being better off for having multiple political parties\u2026<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

“The great thing about religious organisations is they do act as more effective melting pots. And that’s a vital role in a very polarised politics that we have at the moment.”<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n