How Christianity was used as a weapon to justify theft in Australia

All major religions say stealing is wrong, but is the morality of theft always clear in a chaotic world of disadvantage and exploitation?

In certain cases, theft can be an act of desperation or poverty, or the byproduct of intergenerational trauma.

And many colonized nations like Australia were arguably built on theft of land, language, artifacts and people.

According to Anne Pattel-Gray a Bidjara/Kari Kari Woman, theologian and author, Christianity has been used as a justification for theft even though it contradicts the biblical commandment “Thou shalt not steal.”

She makes a connection between colonial ideology and the book of Joshua.

It defines Yahweh (the name for the God of the Israelites) “as the colonial God who gives the chosen people, the Israelites, the right to take possession, steal the land of the Canaanites and commit genocide, wiping them from the planet ,” Dr. Pattel-Gray explains.

“That’s the context we have in Australia.”

She cites the stolen generations as an example.

“Think of the theft of generations of Aboriginal children by (the Australian) government and the placement of these children in homes, most of which were given to churches to be trained as forced laborers in this country “says Dr. Pattel Gray.

“We don’t want to say that there was slavery in this country. We do not want to acknowledge that we have treated children as property in order to benefit those who belonged to the dominant society and wealth.”

Senator Lidia Thorpe highlighted this tension during King Charles III’s visit. in Australia in October.

Wearing a cape made of possum fur, she shouted to the monarch: “You are not our king” and “This is not your country” as he sat a few meters away on the stage.

While her comments and the nature of her protest provoked mixed reactions from Indigenous people, Senator Thorpe brought the idea of ​​theft back into public discourse.

“If we look at Australia, the country was stolen and now (those who stole it) are the dominant (society) defining the rules of what theft is,” Dr. Pattel Gray.

“(The government) wants to legislate what theft is, but not acknowledge that major thefts have occurred.”

Why the idea of ​​private property prevailed

Tim Dean, senior philosopher at the Ethics Center and an honorary fellow at the University of Sydney, agrees there is a “deep hypocrisy” in this framework of colonialism.

He points to the English philosopher John Locke as an important contributor to the Western understanding of what constitutes private property.

“He sparked the idea that God gave people the world,” says Dr. Dean.

“That was a justification that many different Western cultures used to say to other lands where indigenous people lived, ‘Look, this land is unused, so it’s up for grabs.'”

The rise of agriculture was accompanied by the need for land ownership.

“The population is getting larger, wealth is increasing, inequality is increasing, resources are becoming more localized, (and) fences are getting higher,” explains Dr. Dean.

“During this time, people interact more with strangers. You need rules that govern how you interact to enable collaboration.”

Of course, different cultures had different relationships with the land and its resources.

Long before colonization, First Nations people had a deep relationship with the land.

“Geographically speaking, land was given to us by the Creator and through our ancestors,” says Dr. Pattel Gray.

Each language group has a distinct land, she explains, with sacred sites and rivers marking boundaries.

“We understood the concept that you have a relationship with a country that you are responsible for, while with someone else’s country you have no relationship with it and you cannot have a relationship with it, sing for it or perform ceremonies for it,” says Dr. Pattel Gray.

“So the concept of theft was completely different because we would have no interest in stealing someone else’s land because it was a certain language that suited that country.”

Is theft ever justified?

In Australia, owning land is not just about having a place to live or run a business.

Real estate ownership is also a tool for wealth creation.

“If I have something in my possession or control over it and I can decide how it is used, who uses it… I can decide to prevent other people from having access to it,” says Dr. Dean.

“To me, there are all these incentives to hoard property, to hold on to it as much as possible.”

However, this can pose moral challenges – as can hoarding of the goods extracted from the land.

For example, if a farmer has an oversupply of fruit or vegetables – perhaps due to a bumper harvest or due to supermarket delivery arrangements or specifications – it may be cheaper to throw away the crop.

Dr. Dean says owners have every right to defend or dispose of their property as they see fit.

“But the incentive to steal increases when inequality is high, with some having little or nothing and others having a lot,” he points out.

“Of course we want to respect the concept of property and we don’t like theft, but there are more important things here like fairness and survival.”

What about greed?

Although greed may be a vice, it is not a crime like theft.

Dr. Dean says we can thank another British philosopher for this, Adam Smith.

“(He) talked about the idea that the modern economy is driven by desire,” explains Dr. Dean.

“If I’m greedy and want more, then we have an economic framework – or capitalism – in which I work harder, produce more stuff to make more money so I can buy more stuff.”

Dr. Pattel-Grey believes there is no moral justification for greed.

But in today’s society, she says, “We bless and glorify them.”

“You know, in our world it’s the haves versus the have-nots; there are so many who struggle to put food on the table, and yet there are so many who do “They have enormous wealth,” she says.

“If there are so many people who go without, why don’t we share that wealth and property with others who could use it?”

“You’re really getting into a question of religious morality, and the law can’t be so black and white in its application.”

As social standards change and evolve, our perception of theft also changes.

Acts that were considered serious to one generation, such as stealing a loaf of bread, may be viewed in a completely different light by another generation.

Conversely, thefts that were previously considered “acceptable” in the West, such as the settlement of indigenous lands or the removal of artifacts, are now viewed as deeply reprehensible.

For Dr. Dean says there are “sensitive flaws” in our current legal and political system, but he points to significant changes that have been made.

“Look at how penalties for theft have changed over the last 200 or 300 years. People were sent to Australia from England because today we would be considered very minor examples of theft,” he says.

“Today they might even be punished with community service or rehabilitation.

“There may be compassion for the circumstances that drive someone to steal.

“There may be a sense of concern and an idea that we want to rehabilitate… (because) a society with less inequality is a society in which there is less theft.”