A petition titled “Open Letter Against Political Exploitation of Maronites” is making rounds online, expressing concern over the appearance of certain political figures at Saint Charbel’s Maronite Church in Sydney during this year’s Good Friday services. Hosted on Jotform, the letter has generated significant attention among Middle Eastern Christian communities, particularly those of Maronite heritage.

The petition criticises the presence of Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and former Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the church event, suggesting that their attendance politicises a sacred religious gathering and undermines the spiritual neutrality of the Maronite community. It argues that such figures have supported policies perceived as harmful to Middle Eastern and Arab Australians—citing, for instance, refugee policies and historical stances on regional conflicts.

But while the concerns raised strike a chord with many who worry about the growing intersection of faith and politics, the petition itself has sparked debate over whether it provides a balanced view or leans heavily toward a specific political narrative.

Concerns About Political Symbolism

At the heart of the petition is the argument that politicians should not use religious events as campaign platforms or avenues for political branding, especially when their policies may have negatively impacted communities represented within the congregation.

“The presence of such figures during holy services risks misleading the public into believing that the Church aligns with their views,” the petition reads. “This can create division within our community and compromise the Church’s sacred mission.”

For some signatories, this message is overdue. They argue that the Maronite Church should remain a spiritual haven for all believers, not a backdrop for political figures seeking public approval.

Is the Petition Truly Representative?

While the document claims to reflect the views of Maronite, Lebanese, Arab, and Middle Eastern Christians in Australia, there is no clear data or endorsement from community leaders to support that claim. No official response has yet been made by Saint Charbel’s Church or the Maronite Eparchy of Australia. Furthermore, there is no public indication that the politicians mentioned were invited in a political capacity or used the event to campaign.

Some observers also note that the language and references in the petition—such as focus on Palestinian issues and broader Middle Eastern injustices—suggest a broader activist origin, possibly rooted more in the Arab diaspora than the traditionally conservative Maronite institutions. This has led some to speculate whether the petition may reflect a pan-Arab political frustration more than a specifically Maronite concern.

What’s Missing?

A critical review of the petition reveals several notable gaps:

• Church Leadership’s Input: The absence of comments from church leaders makes it difficult to assess whether the event was politicised from within or simply perceived as such from the outside.
• Lack of Political Balance: While the petition targets certain Liberal Party figures, it offers no mention of political figures from other parties who have similarly attended Maronite events, including those with controversial records in other contexts.
• No Dialogue with the Accused: The petition does not reference any attempt to reach out to the named politicians for a response or clarification. This omission limits its credibility as a balanced civic statement.

Pros and Cons of Signing the Petition

On the positive side, the petition raises important awareness about the increasingly blurred lines between religious observance and political theatre. By highlighting concerns over the presence of political figures at sacred events, it draws attention to the need for preserving the spiritual integrity of faith-based gatherings. It also empowers members of the community to speak out about how their faith is represented in public spaces, encouraging civic engagement and dialogue. Furthermore, the petition reinforces the broader democratic principle of church-state separation, a particularly relevant issue in multicultural societies like Australia, where diverse religious traditions coexist alongside a secular political framework.

However, the petition is not without its shortcomings. It lacks comprehensive evidence to support some of its more assertive claims, and there is no clear indication that it represents a broad consensus within the Maronite or wider Middle Eastern Christian communities. This absence of substantiating voices or community-wide consultation could undermine its credibility. Additionally, the petition risks alienating parishioners who may hold differing political views, potentially deepening internal divisions within the community. Finally, by naming specific individuals without offering a constructive avenue for response or dialogue, the petition may itself become a vehicle for the very politicisation it seeks to condemn.

Final Thoughts

The petition opens an important conversation: Should politicians attend religious services, and if so, under what circumstances? And should faith leaders draw clearer lines when inviting guests to holy observances?

Regardless of where one stands, potential signatories are encouraged to read the petition carefully, consider its implications, and reflect on whether it aligns with their vision for the future of faith, politics, and community unity in Australia. In a time of increasing polarisation, the need for thoughtful, inclusive dialogue has never been greater.