[Jack Mulheron died in May of 2006]
Jack Mulheron, educated at Catholic schools, had a variety of jobs before teaching for 28 years. He was active in teacher politics, campaigning for better conditions for students. In 1978 he founded the Committee for the Defence of Secular Education, and has been its driving force. Since retirement he has been active in support of groups of the elderly and in health issues.
Jack Mulheron
In a period which roughly corresponds with the life of the New Zealand Humanist Society our country has undergone something of a revolution. New Zealand has changed from a rather tired and confused welfare state and move increasingly towards an ideologically pure free market society.
Churches, among other institutions, played an important part in the change, and , particualrly in educaton, carried the flag of privatisation. Now that the realities fo the free market - poverty, unemployment, social division, corporate fraud and the abandonment of democratic procedure - are increasingly apparant, churches are expressing moral outrage. They are also organising charity in a way reminiscent of the Victorian era when a similar political/economic ideology was dominant.
Whatever view one has of what appears on the surface to be contradictory activity, it is clear we are seeing more church involvement in all aspects of society and that activity will increase. Chruches now have some official place within the structure of State institutions and claim to be "in partnership" with them. As churches claim to represent the moral and spiritual, as opposed to the material and secular, it seems fair to examine the methods they have used to gain power and influence.
In this article I look, briefly and lightly, at some o fthe ways churches use to gain money and power. Most of the examples are taken from the field of public education over the last decade or so. It is the area I know best and similar methods can be recognised in the other social areas.
The best example of the use of political pressure by churches to benefit themselves at the expense of the State was the preparation and passing of the Integration Act. The secrecy, sophisticated politcal dealing and coercion associated with this damaging and unjust Act smacked more of the never-give-a-sucker-an-even-break philosophy of Tammany Hall than the Christian ethic. By the use of the most dubious means churches got themselves a huge multi-million dollar deal which deprived public schools of needy funds and got them a foot in the door of public schooling.
I have dealt with this matter in a booklet State Aid, Integration and New Zealand's Public Schools.
Section 78A of the Education Act was a consequential amendment of the Integration Act which virtually abolished the 100 year secular clause. It was never debated in Parliament.
The recommendation came from a State Aid Conference committee which comprised six Catholic representatives and four State. The cathollics denied they had anything to do with this section. Because the section proved unpopular, a Government review, which included a Catholic delegation, recommended unanimously in its working parties for repeal of the section. At the plenary session the Catholic delegation were instructed by the Bishops to vote for retention.
The review recommended repeal. The section remains law.
Perhaps miffed by the failure of Section 78A to get relilgion into the official schools programme in all but a handful of schools, the Churches Education Commission (ten Protestant churches with Catholic observers) approached the then Minister of Education to get religious instruction time increased from half an hour to one hour. By using a Supplementary Order Paper public debate was curtailed and the section rushed through.
Teachers were opposed to the extension of time as were the NZ Schools Committees' Federation.
Once again the churches avoided discussion and usd their power to gain infuence.
From the 1960s the CEC developed new programmes of religious instruction, but called them Religious Education or Humanities and advertised them throughout NZ. It was looking "for some way a Christian point of view could be built into the unit (official school curriculum) being taught". CEC sought to have the "School and RI team plan the religious programme together and attempted to convey to school staff that this was a joint enterprise all the way."
When opposition was struck the name was changed to Humanities, the topics were the same, but the prgramme became acceptable to staff.
Most of this activity was contrary to law. Teachers were encouraged to break the law and set precedents which proved embarrassing for those that followed. Direct and indirect pressure was applied illegally to coerce teachers into taking part in religious instruction.
Even before Tomorrow's Schools got under way Mr A Hinton, Assistant Director General of Education, was urging teachers to take courses in Catholic doctrine in order to increase their job oportunities.
In 1987 the Advanced Studies Unit of the Department of Education ran a Values Course which, it advised students, had a special flavour for teachers who intended to teach in integrated schools. The course was designed and written by a Catholic religious studies group which also provided the tutors, the moderator and the examiner. After some questioning by the Society for the Protection of Public Education the Department withdrew the programme. But how easily it had slipped through all the structures of the state.
What happened? Basically, no one spoke up. They were too embarrassed to face up to determined, evangelical colleagues on the various committees. The churches are applying organised and continuous pressure to use the state education system for their denominational purposes. Similar attempts have been made to get catechetical courses in colleges of education. Unless a determined oposition develops we can expect that the continous assaults on the public school curriculum by religious providers will be successful.
There are now official local body chaplains, paid out of rates. Local bodies pray at meetings and impose prayer on public meetings. State buildngs are blessed at offical openings. These insesitive practices exclude at least the 20% of New Zealanders who are not religious, let alone those who uphold the right to freedom of belief.
I have often asked Christians who work in the community why they use techniques fo coercion to get their message across. As they are no less honest as a group than other citizens I feel that it should concern them. It doesn't seem to. I don't know how they justify taking advantage of others, but I guess most are doing as they're told and obeying their church's direction. I suppose if they can believe it's God's work just about anything goes.
Individual proselytising, however objectionable, can be handled by those opposed to it without much trouble simply by firmness. But sophisticated, organised coercion is beyond the power of individuals and small groups.
Churches now are beginning to assume a social role similar to the one they held in the Victorian age. That was also a period of laissez faire capitalism. Church charity was praised and supported by the Establishment, but ultimately resented and hated by the poor. The power and influence fo the churches was used to support the Establishment of which they were part, most ot the good works came from devoted individuals. There was much abuse. Soup for prayer and rightious judgements have left bitter memories.
Will churches act as before now we are entering the new technological age? It could be! Consider the submission made by the Anglican Church to the Human Rights Commission in 1987.
The Anglican submission called for the transfer of the funds saved by cutting services to community carers......
Christians had a personal vocation to help others which was not always shared by health professionals... Handing out benfits might also become a church job... Traditionally the churches had run social services, but the Welfare state changed all that. Now the trend was reverting back.
-Interview with Archbishop Davis, Dominion 14.12.87
People generally associate the churches with good things - caring, solace, hope - and churches bathe in the glory of that well-promoted image. The image is certainly true of the self-sacrificing Christians who do the good works, but not always true of the church institutions.
The churches should be judged in the same way we judge other institutions which own and accumulate property, invest money, develop bureacracies and seek to acquire power and infuuence. They are entitled to be given credit too for their aspirations, but their image must not be allowed to conceal their more material concerns and activities.
Many institutions have social concerns, but they tend to be dealt with only after the demands of the institution are attended to.
Churches tend to do well in times of conservative reaction. The new and extreme political ideology which now dominates NZ society has created a net of fears - fear of poverty, unemployment, unattended illness. And the big fear of authority. The nature of our conformity is changing. It is no longer a discomfort with difference, a cuddling up to the crowd, we now conform because we're scared. Conformity can be a euphemism for oppression.
Ordinary people are now much more open to exploitation, politically, socially and economically by those who have captured power. As I have attempted to show, churches, like other institutions, will use their power to further the needs of the institutions. The decline in interest in religion as such is almost irrelevant to the concerns I have tried to express. The issue is one of power over people's lives.
What can be done? I believe we, the ordinary people, will have to learn again how to be effective politically. It will take more than talk. And a lot more than just voting.
valid html5