Christian considerations about The Voice referendum
My purpose in writing on this topic is twofold: firstly, to share some thoughts about what to consider in determining how to vote in the referendum, and secondly to encourage Christian discussion of significant societal issues even if they have become political. In today’s world, nearly all significant public matters are politicised. As we are commanded to be salt and light of the world, we cannot, and should not avoid political issues. Some Christians have misunderstood the meaning of “separation of church and state” and are inhibited from engaging in any discussion political. This is a misnomer that is important to correct.
As I see it, there are three categories of considerations in determining whether to support The Voice, viz. biblical, governmental and political.
Biblical: The publicised reasons for The Voice are firstly to give recognition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (hereinafter ATSI) as one important step in the “reconciliation” with them after the atrocities done to them by British colonialism in history. Secondly, it is to permanently establish an avenue for the government to consult with ATSI with the view of improving their well-being and giving them equal opportunities in life in Australia. These are right and honourable intentions consistent with biblical teachings. ATSI currently have a significantly shorter life expectancy and standard of living compared to the Australian average, and these gaps should be bridged over time. There is no doubt that they suffered greatly when settlers displaced them from the land, killed many of them and imposed Western ways of life on them. Much as we, as migrants many decades later had no part in the misdeeds of the original colonisation, we are now part of this nation, and have ownership of its history, whether we like it or not. {cf. Daniel’s ownership of the sins of his ancestors although he had no part in committing those sins.} Biblical principle is that when we have wronged someone, we need to seek forgiveness and reconciliation. Loving others, particularly those deprived is, of course, a clear biblical teaching.
Governmental: These considerations pertain to whether The Voice would contribute to good government, including its appropriateness and effectiveness in achieving the stated purposes. These considerations are in the domain of practical implementation of principles and are not directly informed by scripture. They need the wisdom of judgement after considering a range of opinions and earnest praying. The considerations include:
a. While recognition of the ATSI and their past and present suffering, and the establishment of a permanent avenue of consultation can only be positive, there is debate about whether to do it constitutionally is appropriate and best. There are also questions about whether recognition of one people group and not others would strengthen or weaken national unity.
b. Reconciliation is a good thing, but there is a very diverse understanding of what reconciliation with the ATSI would involve. There is no possible way of undoing what was done in history. To some, Australia is so indebted to the ATSI that any step towards that goal is worth taking, and they do not consider it necessary to have the overall picture first. Others feel strongly otherwise, that a commitment should not be entered into without understanding its extent.
c. Some feel that The Voice is a solid step forward to pave the way for other measures to be taken to improve the well-being of the ATSI. Even if results would take a long term to eventuate, the symbolism of recognition is vital. Others think that The Voce is no more than window-dressing and has no practical value. Some advocates of ATSI rights think that it is being used as an excuse for the government not to do something more practical for the betterment of the ATSI.
Political: The Voice is being championed by the Labour Party and the Opposition is against it. Their positions could have arisen from their ideologies and convictions, but undoubtedly, there is also partisan politics involved. That is what we, as Christians, should not allow to influence our decisions.
Let us be diligent in considering how to vote through prayerfully seeking guidance from the Lord.
基督徒對《原住民之音》[1] 公投的考慮
我撰寫此主題的目的有兩個：首先是分享一些關於在這次公投中投贊成或反對票的考慮；其次是鼓勵基督徒對重大社會問題進行討論，儘管這些問題已成為政治問題。在當今世界，幾乎所有重大公共事務都被政治化。既然我們被命令要成為世上的鹽和光，我們便不能也不應該迴避政治問題。一些基督徒誤解了「政教分離”含義，而避忌任何政治討論。糾正這誤解是非常重要的。
在我看來，在決定是否支持《原住民之音The Voice;以下簡稱「原音」》時需要考慮三方面，即：聖經原則、施政果效和黨派政治。
聖經原則：設立《原音》所聲稱的理由首先是承認原住民和托雷斯海峽島民 (以下簡稱「原住民」)在社會的地位，並作為因以往英國殖民主義對他們所施的暴行與他們「和解」的重要一步。其次是永久建立政府與原住民協商的渠道，以改善他們的福祉，並為他們在澳大利亞的生活提供平等機會。這些都是符合聖經教訓，並是光明正大的用意。與澳大利亞平均水平相比，原住民目前的預期壽命相當短，生活水平也很低，這些差距應該隨著時間而縮小。毫無疑問，當移民將他們逐出原居地、殺害許多人並將西方生活方式及文化強加他們身上時，他們遭受了巨大的傷害。對我們在事發後數百年移民來澳的人來說，雖然我們並沒有參與最初殖民統治的罪行，我們現在是這個國家的一部分，也承繼了澳大利亞的歷史遺產，因此我們不能卸下尋找解決方的責任。{參見但以理承擔他祖先的罪孽之責任，儘管他個人並沒有參與犯那些罪。} 聖經原則是，當我們得罪他人時，我們需要尋求寬恕與和解。我們須愛他人，特別是那受我們剝奪的人。這當然也是聖經明確的教導。
施政果效：這些考慮因素涉及《原音》是否有助於建立良好的政制，包括其在實現既定目標方面的適當性和有效性。這些考慮屬於原則的實施，並非聖經直接處理的問題。我們須在考慮了不同意見和懇切祈禱後，用主賜的智慧去判斷並決定怎樣投票。
1.雖然考慮原住民過去和現在的困苦，以及建立永久協商途徑都是正面的，但對於在憲法上這樣做是否適當的和最好的處理方法有不少的爭議性。還有一個問題是，承認一個種族而不同樣承認其他種族是會加強或削弱國家的團結呢?
2.和解是一件好事，但對於與原住民和解所涉及的內容存在有不同的理解。歷史上發生的事情是無法挽回的。對於一些人來說，澳大利亞對原住民所欠的債是嚴重的，以至為了達到和解的目標，任何步驟都是值得採取，甚至沒有必要首先了解所涉及的內容。其他人則強烈認為，在不了解其涉及範圍的情況下不應做出承諾。
3.一些人認為《原音》是為和解向前邁出的堅實一步，為採取其他措施改善原住民的福祉鋪路。即使結果需要很長時間才能實現，承認原住民身分帶着的象徵意義仍然至關重要。另一些人則認為《原音》只不過是門面功夫而已，沒有任何實用價值。一些原住民權利倡導者認為這被用作政府不切實為改善原住民的藉口。
黨派政治：《原音》是工黨所擁戴的，而反對黨所反對的。他們的立場可能源於他們的哲理和信念，但毫無疑問，還涉及黨派政治。作為基督徒，我們不應該讓這種政治影響我們的決定。讓我們勤奮思考如何通過禱告尋求主的指引來投票。
[1]將於2023年10月14日舉行全民投票，決定根據憲法建立一個代表原住民和托雷斯海峽島民的諮詢體制，稱為《原住民之音》，就影響這些人的法律和政策向政府進行諮詢。
