I received an interesting letter today which I’m sure many of you received too. It came from the “Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association” and was headed “Re: Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday & ANZAC Day.” It raises some issues that I think are a bit more complex from a Baptist perspective. In essence, it says that the State Government has introduced legislation to allow large retailers to trade on these remaining days on which they are presently required to shut. The letter invokes the issue of the religiou significance of these days in order to prompt church support for their campaign to stop this legislation.

Of course, the real issue from the Union’s perspective is not the religious nature of the days, but the unfortunate effect of their workers losing the right to not work on these days, and in this regard i think we can sympathise with them. From a baptist perspective though, I think our traditional conviction about the separation of Church and State means that arguing it on religious grounds is the wrong way to go about it, and so rather than offer knee-jerk support, I wonder whether we might be better replying to the letter with an offer of a different suggestion.

The doctrine of the Separation of Church and State says that we are opposed to the State privileging any particular religion, including ours. It argues that the State should not have an Established Religion, and it follows that the religious holidays of a religion should not be established (proclaimed and privileged) by the State either. While it is undoubtedly true that these holidays are loved by the non-religious majority in our society, they are not universal and so do not warrant privilege and protection. ANZAC day is of course the exception because it is a State occasion and therefore the State is at liberty to establish it.

It seems to me that we, and the Unions, might be truer to our convictions and their objectives by arguing for a different type of legislation. Businesses would be free to trade on any day of the year (unless the State establishes some civic holidays such as ANZAC or Australia Day), and that all employees be entitled to nominate a set number of particular occasions which are of significance to them, for religious or any other reason, which they will take off and which no employer can refuse to allow or discriminate against the employee on the basis of. We might also argue that everyone should be able to nominate a weekly sacred day which can also not be refused.

Such an arrangement would, it seems to me, better achieve the objective of protecting worker’s rights to appropriate time off, better achieve the Union and Church objective of enabling workers to take leave for days of relgious significance, and be more consistent with the historic baptist conviction that no religious groups should be either discriminated against or privileged by the State.

What do others think?

Peace and hope,

Nathan

_____________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church Melbourne, Australia