Religion and politics don’t mix. Someone should tell our Prime Minister.
By David Swanton
Posted Wednesday, 23 September 2018 in newmatilda.com
Some people may suggest that the machinations involved in political leadership struggles are tantamount to madness. But stupidity knows no bounds. Recent policy developments in Australia that removed climate change emission targets and prevented the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legislating for voluntary euthanasia have taken irrationality and stupidity to new levels. It is now time that some politicians’ policies are called for what they are: acts of stupidity born of religious indoctrination.
It is worthwhile considering how religious politicians think. Most have been indoctrinated, usually since early childhood, to believe in fictional, primitive scriptures that discriminate against women and the LGBTQI community. They pray to and worship a mythical god that they think has murdered millions, including children (through a Great Flood and Passover) and in whose name millions have been murdered in religious conflicts over the centuries. Their religious belief determines their worldview. They have a right to that belief. Their indoctrination and flawed analytical skills may warrant education, but not condemnation.
What ought to be condemned is that many religious politicians are using their subjective worldview as a basis for public policy, which they impose on others. Religious politicians do not understand that if instead they were indoctrinated in another culture and religion, they would have followed the other religion and have another worldview. They are so tightly wrapped in their religious security blanket that they cannot comprehend that their subjective worldview fails any rational, objective test. They cannot see the hypocrisy of imposing their worldviews on others when they would detest other religions’ subjective beliefs and worldviews being imposed on themselves.
Ideally, politicians should consider dispassionately the economic, social, legal, environmental, scientific and other underpinnings of competing public policies to determine the extent to which they can generate national benefits. Consequently, politicians who use their religion as a basis for public policy, including on climate change, euthanasia or even embryonic stem cell research, must realise that their religion will be scrutinised. If a policy and its underlying philosophical basis is found to be irrational, unsubstantiated or unsound, it should be rejected and condemned. Or so the theory goes.
Religious politicians have nonetheless continued to offer subjective and superficial explanations to justify policies for political or personal expediency. Their faux policy explanations on climate change and euthanasia have been left unscrutinised by some of the media and foisted on an ill-informed public.
How have religiously motivated politicians affected climate change policy? Evidence from climate studies suggests drought frequency and intensity should increase over time. While short-term drought assistance measures are important, the causes of anthropogenic climate change must be addressed in the short-term to prevent potentially more severe longer-term problems. New Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, himself religious, has indicated that his Government’s most urgent need is to address the current drought affecting much of eastern Australia. Regrettably, he has already evaded a discussion linking human-induced climate change to drought.
It was only in the past few weeks that the Government announced that greenhouse gas emission targets would be removed from its signature energy policy, probably to appease religious climate change sceptics. Yet these sceptics cannot tell us in what universe carbon dioxide does not absorb in the infrared. They might try praying to prevent on-going drought. But that would rate as stupidity compared to action on objective, evidence-based emission reduction policies to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.
Fossil fuels have long been used to provide reliable power. Historically, they have been very useful and beneficial, but the latest advice is that any infatuation with finite fossil fuels is misguided. Renewable energy sources are the only option that will be available to future generations, certainly from 2100, and thereafter, for as long as people inhabit this earth. It is difficult to imagine that anyone with concern for the future of the planet could seriously consider extensive investment in new fossil-fuel based power generation. This is partly because of the overwhelming international support for the Paris Agreement, which is based on scientific evidence warning against greenhouse gas production.
The scientific reports indicating the dangers of generating more greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels would be incomprehensible to the average parliamentarian. Fortunately, the Australian Parliamentary Library has succinctly summarised the situation outlined by the International Panel on Climate Change. Specific risks to Australia from climate change include ‘greater flood damage’ and ‘limited water resources in southern Australia’, ‘greater impacts from heat waves on infrastructure as well as human health and mortality’. It states these threats ‘are not simply theoretical but already occurring’. Unless climate change causes are satisfactorily addressed, increasingly more drought-assistance funding will be required. And that would be adding economic stupidity to environmental stupidity.
The recent defeat of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 in the Senate cranked political stupidity up a few notches. This bill would have reinstalled the right of the ACT and Northern Territory to enact legislation for voluntary euthanasia. States have such a right and Victoria has enacted legislation. This bill would simply have been giving territory citizens, through their legislative assemblies, the same decision-making rights as those living in the states.
ACT Senator Zed Seselja opposed this bill. ACT Legislative Assembly opposition leader Alistair Coe declared that the ‘Canberra Liberals were not lobbying for the voting rights to be restored to the territories’. Zed Seselja and Alistair Coe do not want the ACT, the jurisdiction they represent, to have the same decision-making right as other jurisdictions. That is embarrassing for them and insulting for their ACT constituents. They voted against the bill to prevent the possibility that the ACT could regulate euthanasia. Yet, neither of these religious politicians can justify the unjustifiable: why their subjective religious views should be imposed on their constituents and so deny people choice on euthanasia. They would undoubtedly demand a conscience vote in any euthanasia debate. However, by opposing euthanasia and worshiping a god that causes suffering they then ensure people who want to reduce their suffering through euthanasia are denied their choice. Hypocrisy and stupidity abound.
Zed Seselja, Alistair Coe and Vicki Dunne (an ACT shadow minister who did not appreciate that suicide was legal in the ACT until we informed her at a recent End of Life Choices inquiry hearing) reject the idea that people can make choices about their own lives. Former prime ministers Keating, Howard, Rudd, Abbott and Turnbull oppose voluntary euthanasia, probably because of their religious upbringing. Such a capricious approach to policy is deplorable. It is not the rigorous evidence-based approach to policy that we should expect of our leaders. These leaders lack the moral fortitude to develop a cogent policy position outside their religious security blanket. As leaders, they should have the courage to stop believing in angels, devils, gods, miracles etc, and realise the moral stupidity of worshipping a murderous god and the hypocrisy of imposing their subjective personal views on others. However, indoctrination is both hard to resist and to overcome.
It is also disturbing that indigenous Senator Pat Dodson, a former Catholic priest, opposed the bill. As an indigenous person he should rightfully reject unjust discrimination, but his religion discriminates. He said the bill would leave indigenous people ‘even more vulnerable’. Yet the evidence indicates that the Northern Territory’s short-lived legislation to allow assisted dying years ago was used only by four people, all of whom were white, and all had to be assessed by doctors and psychiatrists before they could make use of the legislation.
We have heard these politicians’ distracting regulatory arguments against voluntary euthanasia, including the need to protect the vulnerable. Competent regulators can address these concerns. Regulation can and should specify eligibility criteria, penalties, compliance, enforcement, monitoring and reporting requirements. These politicians should firstly consider whether everybody has the ethical right to their own bodies, rather than distracting others with the regulatory matters that they should be managing. This is the individual freedom that liberals espouse, but so conveniently ignore. Regulators could start with eligibility being limited to those who are sufficiently competent to prepare their own will. If politicians lack the competence to regulate, then they should stand aside for those who can.
Australians’ desire for voluntary euthanasia regulation is reflected in numerous polls. However, given that many politicians are abrogating their responsibility to regulate voluntary euthanasia, it is unsurprising that many Australians, particularly members of Dr Philip Nitschke’s organisation Exit International, are taking matters into their own hands. Suicide is legal and these Australians, and many worldwide, are now equipped with the information to have a legal and peaceful death, without the involvement of doctors, regulators or others. Such information is readily available to those studying medical or science degrees. Voluntary euthanasia—more properly rational suicide or rational death—is happening now without regulatory control. The regulatory option is being overtaken by greater information availability.
Given these developments, there are two scenarios. Weak religious politicians will continue to ignore the fact that voluntary euthanasia is happening. This is the most probable scenario, because the alternative would be repugnant to most of them. It would mean they might have to discard their religious security blanket, recognise that they should not be imposing their subjective worldviews on others, address their existential crisis (and of course they should seek professional help if necessary) and regulate voluntary euthanasia. Such an undertaking would require religious politicians to show the integrity and moral fortitude they lack.
Voluntary euthanasia advocates have been advocating the primacy of individual freedom and autonomy for years. Prime Minister Morrison should be supportive of ‘individual freedom’, as it is a core Liberal Party belief. In his first press conference he said ‘we believe that we should decide our own future as individuals, as families, as communities, and of course as a nation. We all want to be able to make our own choices in life’. On that basis, he should support voluntary euthanasia.
Australians deserve the most effective policies to improve their quality of life. Only objective, evidence-based policy can provide the most effective means to ease droughts, mitigate climate change, prevent suffering, and solve Australia’s and the world’s problems. The alternative, pursuing policies based on the subjective worship of mythical gods, is only stupidity.
David Swanton is an ethicist, scientist and director of Ethical Rights . He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.
Same-Sex Marriage: Religious Discrimination Denies Equality
By David Swanton
Posted Monday, 25 September 2017 in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate
Unjust discrimination is wrong. Most people condemn discrimination based on sex, race, disability or other status. They understand that it violates the sound ethical principle of equality for all humans. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, including through a prohibition on same-sex marriage, can be shown to be ethically equivalent to these other invidious and unethical forms of discrimination.
More generally, if discrimination is permitted against one group of people, then all groups are vulnerable.
Recently, some mainly conservative religious groups have argued strongly against same-sex marriage. Their arguments have origins in Christian scriptures, which they choose to believe. When these religious arguments impact on others and are proposed in a public policy context, it is appropriate that they and their theological foundations should be analysed and, if found deficient, rejected.
The outcome of such an analysis is that religious arguments on same-sex marriage are subjective, discriminatory and lack ethical merit.
First, religions lack objectivity. An objective approach requires reason to make a case for (or against) same-sex marriage, such as an appeal to the principle of equality for all humans. Respecting equality requires that if heterosexuals can marry whomever they want, then everyone should have that right. Most religious leaders (but not all religious people) reject this notion. Another relevant principle might be a utilitarian approach to the betterment of humankind. More people will be happier if they are permitted to marry whomever they want.
In contrast, a subjective approach reflects someone’s religious or other personal beliefs. A feature of most religions, including Christianity and Islam, is that they invoke one or more gods that are central to their teaching and beliefs. The beliefs are subjective because only people of a given religion believe in that religion’s god. This follows from the strong correlation between a person’s religious beliefs, their cultural heritage and the extent of their early childhood instruction in the religion. If the person were raised in a different culture and instructed in a different religion they would in all likelihood follow a different religion and have a different worldview, including on issues such as same-sex marriage.
Subjective personal arguments against same-sex marriage have no ethical merit. There are no means of determining what is right if an issue comes down to a subjective exchange of ‘my god knows more than your god and my views are right, including on same-sex marriage’. A better rationale is required in a public policy debate.
Second, some religions are inherently discriminatory, as they do not treat all people equally. To explore this lack of equality and the extent of this discrimination, let’s consider the following hypothetical scenario. What if a new religion were to be established tomorrow and an inspired person drafts religious text that reflects the views of their new God? The newly drafted religious text includes the following verses.
- A white person should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a white person to teach or to have authority over a non-white person; the white person must be silent.
- Any white person who is arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the priest who represents your God must die.
- A white person who works on God’s holy day will be put to death.
- White people who reject God will be killed in a great flood, and the first-born sons of white people will also killed.
- If a person has sex with a white person, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands.
- Non-white people are protectors of white people. Non-white people can advise white people, then forsake them in bed, and then strike them lightly if they are disobedient.
- People should fight against white people until all religion is only for God.
The above verses discriminate against a person’s colour. Many would consider them disgusting. They deny rights to a group of people, in this case white people. Such religious text should be treated with the contempt that any discriminatory text based on colour or race deserves.
The astute reader would realise that the first five of these verses have been extracted from the Christian Bible and, for good measure, the last two have been adapted from the Islamic Qur’an. The biblical text has been reworked to substitute the phrase ‘white person’ in scripture that condemns women, non-believers and same-sex activity, while verses from the Qur’an that discriminate against women and non-believers have been reworked. This scenario could have been changed by simple word substitution to instead discriminate against women, same-sex or black people, Christians or atheists. The new religion’s proponents might say that God moves in mysterious ways, the text is taken out of context (it applies to ancient events) or it is not meant to be taken literally. No explanations hide the underlying discrimination. Again, discrimination against any one group of people leaves all groups vulnerable to discrimination.
Anyone who condemns the discriminatory text in the hypothetical scenario should condemn the ethically equivalent scriptures in Christianity and Islam, including those verses condemning same-sex relationships. Consequently, society should also condemn any invidious discrimination based on colour, race, sex, sexual orientation, language or other status, including if it occurs in religion.
It is clear from the arguments above that mainstream religions and their lobbying groups have forfeited the moral high ground they might have coveted, as they revere subjective and discriminatory scriptures and reject objectivity and equality. Oblivious to this fact, conservative religious groups try to impose their views and values on others. Their arguments against same-sex marriage reflect homophobic religious text. More modern arguments include that same-sex marriage would take away religious freedom, affect children’s rights because every child should have a mum and dad, and that marriage is about procreation. These arguments have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. They are an attempt to justify same-sex discrimination under the pretence of an attack on religious freedom, an emotional appeal related to children’s rights, and a dated religious view about marriage.
Same-sex marriage does not pose a threat to freedom of speech or appropriate religious freedom. Some opponents of same-sex marriage might complain that they want to continue discriminating against same-sex people. Any such discrimination is unacceptable, whether same-sex marriage is permitted or not.
In general terms, to avoid conflict with the individual rights of others, a person’s right to practise their religion of choice should be limited so that it does not impact on others. If it were to impact on others, it would be contrary to a principle of equality that forms a key element of many religions. The Golden Rule proposes that we act toward others as we would have them act towards us. It suggests that if we do not want others to impose their religious or other values on us, then we should not impose our values on others. Similarly, if we don’t want others to discriminate against us, we should not discriminate against others, including on same-sex marriage. This is where hypocrisy becomes apparent. Many people, including those in conservative religious groups, apply the Golden Rule selectively; they don’t want to be discriminated against yet they choose to discriminate against those in same-sex relationships.
Same-sex marriage will not affect children’s rights. Every child has at least two biological parents (hence a mum and dad) and one or more parent carers. In addition, society should recognise that modern families now include one and many parent families, same-sex families, as well as parents who have adopted children.
Another argument that marriage is about a male and a female reproducing is unacceptable because it is not universalisable, otherwise it would apply with equal force to all parents (heterosexual or same-sex) who adopt children. Others cannot or choose not to have children, but these people are not banned from marrying. Children should have the best possible parents, whatever their status. Whether a child’s same-sex parents have the legal status of being married is irrelevant to the child’s upbringing, but extremely relevant to the parents’ status as equals in society.
Put simply, same-sex marriage is a societal construct that will allow two people who love each other to legally marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, sex or other status. Same-sex marriage will reduce legal discrimination against same-sex people and better humankind through improving the wellbeing of those who choose to marry. Most people realise this. Conservative religious groups ought to appreciate that people want to be happy and that others might not necessarily find happiness in the same ways that they do.
There are no fundamental dangers in same-sex marriage that require its repudiation. Religious arguments against same-sex marriage are subjective, reinforce discrimination, lack ethical merit and should be rejected in any public policy debate respecting equality. It would be hoped that reason and objectivity is used to progress social reform on same-sex marriage and other issues; a more accepting world will be a better place.
David Swanton is an ethicist, scientist and director of Ethical Rights . He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.
An Australian should be Australia's head of state
By David Swanton
Posted Wednesday, 3 May 2017 in in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate
Perhaps every parent’s most fervent wish for their children is that they are healthy and well educated so that they can have every opportunity to realise their dreams. If a child aspires to be an executive of a new national high-tech company, captain a national sporting team, be an academic or pursue an interesting career, they should have the opportunity to do so.
In many countries, including Australia, a child’s aspirations are unfortunately limited. If an Australian child aspires to reach what many would consider to be the pinnacle, in a national sense, of being the country’s head of state, she or he is unable to do so. Sadly, and embarrassingly, it is not possible for an Australian to be Australia’s head of state.
According to the Australian Government, Australia is a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Australia's head of state being the Queen of Australia. Her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. She is also the Queen of the United Kingdom and other realms.
As the Queen is not Australian, there is a perceived, and probably a real, conflict of interest in performing her duties, even if they are mostly ceremonial. It cannot be said with any conviction that the Queen is unequivocally and fully committed to Australia. Such a commitment is surely a desirable if not necessary quality for a country’s head of state.
Australia can do better than continuing with the British monarchy. The monarchy is, in reality, a class-based system of institutionalised nepotism that discriminates on the basis of religion, gender, age and family (descent). Invidious discrimination of this nature must be rejected. The logical alternative would be that an Australian should become the Australian head of state, appointed or selected on merit.
Religious bias was highlighted in the Queen’s most recent Christmas Broadcast, itself an anachronistic reference to a time when the majority of her subjects may have fallen under her Church of England, of which she is supreme governor. She concluded her speech with a reference to the Christian Christmas story. She was of course speaking, although not proselytising, as a head of a religion that has fewer numbers in Australia than Catholics and those who do not have a religion.
Religion, or lack of it, is a personal decision for each individual. So why would Australians want their head of state to discuss her beliefs? To those who think that this should occur, they should ask themselves whether they would want that if the head of state was not of their religion, or if atheism, Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam instead dominated in Australia.
This religious link to our head of state has historical origins that are reflected in the Australian Constitution. The Constitution’s current preamble, notes that the people, ‘humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God’, agreed to unite ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom…’. It is embarrassing and humiliating that any country should humbly rely on anything. It is galling that this thing is an imaginary ‘Almighty God’ (from a scientific perspective, there is no evidence), the existence of which is only believed by those who have been indoctrinated or acculturated in that belief system. Indeed, it is divisive and ridiculous to include a reference to any religious figures in what is essentially a legal document.
Notably, the Queen’s Christmas Broadcast made no mention of Australia or Australians. If she was making that speech in her other capacities, and we can suspect she was, then perhaps Australia needs a head of state who better promotes and supports Australia. Of what relevance was her speech, coming from a non-Australian who does not live in Australia, to Australians? A head of state should be to an independent sovereign nation what a spouse is to a partner: fully committed, supportive and favoured over all others.
The religious bias is further highlighted by the fact that while the British head of state can now marry a Catholic, a Catholic cannot be head of state. The Queen’s role, and that of her heirs, disenfranchises those who are not members of her church. It is unlikely that a future monarch would not be a member of the Church of England, given the high levels of early childhood religious indoctrination that would be expected to occur in the royal household, and that generally occurs throughout the world. Interestingly, one can only imagine the constitutional anxieties that would arise if the British monarch chose to convert to Islam, and then to atheism, change their gender or even to marry a gay black person. While there would be consequences for changing religion, the latter is currently permitted.
The Queen acceded to the throne because she had no brothers and was the eldest child of the previous monarch. It is now rightfully the case that male-preference primogeniture does not apply after the date of effect of the Perth Agreement. However, the sexist nature of the British monarchy still remains, as the Perth Agreement has not properly rectified the line of succession, and the husband of a Queen regnant is generally titled differently to the wife of a King. This sexism is unacceptable in a modern, egalitarian world, and does nought to promote equality of the sexes.
Absolute primogeniture, the determination of an heir as the eldest sibling in the one familial line, is also unacceptable. There is no merit in one family’s descendants having a monopoly on a significant national position, just as there is no merit in age, gender or sexual identity determining the most appropriate head of state. And what if the eldest sibling were to have a criminal record or intellectual impairment?
The arguments above do not cast aspersions on the character of the current Queen, or former or future monarchs. The Queen has, by all accounts, been an excellent diplomat. She has fulfilled her official and ceremonial duties admirably over many years, particularly given the scrutiny and pressure placed on those involved in royal activities. However, she is British. She is not a Canadian, Jamaican, New Zealander or an Australian. These and other countries could do well to reconsider how a head of state could best perform the duties, official and ceremonial, that are required of their head of state. A commitment to one country above all others must take primacy.
An independent Australia does not need a head of state who promotes Britain overseas, or a non-Australian’s picture on its currency, or future heads of state cheering for British rather than Australian teams in sporting contests. The British monarchy, as an institution, does not show an absolute commitment to Australia. Australians should not be surprised by this fact.
The Queen’s Australian functions are exercisable by the Australian Governor General, but the Queen is required to appoint the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, and she can also disallow an Act of Parliament, which is possible, but extremely unlikely to occur. This latter point is, nonetheless, disturbing. We would no more accept a statement in the Constitution to the effect of ‘The Queen may disallow a Catholic, atheist or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander from becoming a member of Parliament’ on the basis that it would be unlikely to be used, so why should Australians accept a provision that ‘The Queen may disallow a law…’ in the Constitution on that same basis.
Although Australia has a poor record of constitutional reform, efforts should be made to remedy obsolete provisions, remove religious references, recognise Australia’s indigenous heritage and modernise the Constitution. A truly independent and progressive country should not accept second best.
As the Queen’s duties are relatively straightforward and can be otherwise handled, there is no constitutional danger in eliminating the Queen’s role in Australia. To those who say that such functions are insignificant, and that we should leave well enough alone, I say Australia, and many other countries, can and should do better. It would be a massive symbolic fillip if an Australian could become Australia’s head of state. It would be even better if that first Australian head of state were to be a ‘first Australian’, that is, an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander.
The Queen could, if she wanted to actively extend her healthy relationship with Australians, write to the Prime Minister indicating that she is aware of the groundswell of support for an Australian to be the Australian head of state. She could offer her best wishes if Australia were to progress down the path of becoming a republic. Such a gesture would be noble and statesmanlike, and would engender respect from monarchists and republicans alike. It would unite, rather than divide. The alternative could be divisive, if the monarchy were to be disparaged or otherwise drawn into protracted Australian constitutional debates and referenda.
A head of state selected from a flawed class-based system in a foreign country that discriminates on the basis of religion, gender, age and family, and is not merit-based, is unacceptable. A national head of state should be a citizen of and solely committed to one country (so should not be a dual citizen), not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, sex, sexual identity, age or other irrelevant characteristics, and should either be appointed or selected on merit, depending on the country’s political system.
In Australia’s case, a minimalist change would surely suggest a republic of some form. With such an egalitarian system, it would then be possible for any Australian child to aspire to be the Australian head of state. Which is how it must be.
David Swanton is an ethicist, scientist and director of Ethical Rights . He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.
