Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Saturday 10th September 2022 at 2:53am
St Paul's Anglican Cathedral, Melbourne (Photo: Mitchell Luo)
No, I don’t mean Exodus 10:1, though ‘a plague of locusts on your house so that I might escape it’ could be relevant. I mean exodus = ‘to leave’, and 101 = ‘the most basic introductory unit of a subject stream as numbered at universities’. It’s a metaphor for “what are the basic reasons Australians are leaving religion in droves?”
I’ve discussed this subject in my research series Religiosity in Australia, penned as a Fellow of the Australian Rationalist Society. And this week, we were furnished with another example underpinning exodus 101, this time from the Anglican church.
Most Anglicans oppose VAD, don’t they?
In a piece for The Melbourne Anglican by writer Jenan Taylor, “Pro assisted dying Anglicans not in the majority”, religious dogmatism seems to be alive and well, despite plummeting numbers of Anglicans. Here are the first two sentences:
“Most Anglicans are against voluntary assisted dying despite a survey suggesting high levels of support among them, according to one Church leader.
Trinity College research professor the Reverend Canon Professor Dorothy Lee said there was always a diversity of opinion among Anglicans, but that most did not accept VAD.”
I was left astonished at this spectacular illustration of the Dunning Kruger effect: that often it is those with the least knowledge or skills in a subject who seem to have the greatest confidence in their opinions.
What’s the evidence?
For many years, repeated professional and scholarly social surveys have shown that around four in five Australian Anglicans are in favour of legalised voluntary assisted dying (VAD). I had a quick look through my records and found amongst recent studies that 79% of Anglicans supported VAD in 2016, according to the Australian National University-led Australian Election Study that year.
And VoteCompass, coordinated by scholars at the University of Melbourne alongside academics in Canada, in 2019 found 81% of Australian Anglicans favoured lawful VAD. It had a massive sample size of some 54,000 Anglicans. (Not 54,000 Australians: that was around 540,000, and in 2019 very close to 1 in 10 Australians said they were Anglican.)
And what was The Melbourne Anglican article reacting to? A just-published professional poll by The Australia Institute showing that in 2022, 82% of Anglicans support VAD. A result bang on the money relative to other recent high-quality research.
Research doesn’t always equal research
You will notice in the second sentence of the article, above, that Professor Dorothy Lee is introduced as “research professor” and her conclusion is that “most” Anglicans oppose VAD. Given this close juxtaposition, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the claim was based on something concrete.
It isn’t.
How could that be, if Lee is a “research professor”? Well, Prof. Lee’s CV doesn’t note that she’s a professor of sociology, or of quantitative social research. She’s a “research professor” of biblical narratives. The Gospels, to be particular.
I’m sure that Prof. Lee is indeed well versed in Biblical narratives, but this is no qualification for advancing a gratuitous opinion contrary to repeated high-quality research conducted by professionals and scholars with relevant expertise.
Ideological blinkers
Indeed, the article didn’t report any actual evidence to support Prof. Lee’s opinion. It’s just plonked on the page as though it’s authoritative. The only supporting material is ideological, for example that Anglicans are meant to pursue and support life at all times; that suffering can be alleviated, hypothetical slippery slopes, etc. The usual religious arguments.
Indeed, as I reveal in Part 2 of my Religiosity in Australia research series (that’s real sociological research based on robust, multiple high-quality survey data sources), the opinions of religious Australians about a range of social matters, including VAD and abortion, is quite at odds with – vastly more socially progressive than – their religious “masters”.
This is a key reason for Australians abandoning religion in droves: the laity find themselves liking dogmatic conservative stances from the pulpit less and less.
The exodus
Figure 1 shows the proportion of Australians who are Anglican, and their religious service attendance, by year. Notionals never attend services; Occasionals typically once or twice a year; Regulars monthly, and Devouts weekly or more often.
Figure 1: Proportion of Anglican Australians and their religiosity by year Source: Australian Election Studies; Australian Bureau of Statistics. Note: The AES typically slightly over-samples Anglicans relative to Census data. Years in square brackets are the Census year, plotted against the closest AES year. Other Census points are plotted against the correct year.
Obvious is that the underlying base of Devouts has remained fairly stable over the years. But both Notionals and Occasionals have voted with their feet, and are no longer even willing to say that they’re “cultural” Anglicans. They’ve abandoned the church.
“Naughty” versus “real” Anglicans
Curiously, article author Ms Taylor asked my colleague and national coordinator of Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Assisted Dying, Mr Ian Wood, whether it was possible that the overall opinion of Anglicans was swayed by those who are not church-goers. Naturally, Mr Wood agreed it was a possibility.
But the very asking of the question raises a thorny issue for Ms Taylor and the Anglican church. It implies that Anglicans who don’t attend church are “lesser” Anglicans, or somehow misguided or “naughty” Anglicans. Not “real” Anglicans.
But if you say you represent Anglicans, who are you actually representing? More on that later.
Yes, opinions do vary
Prof. Dorothy Lee says there’s “a diversity of opinion among Anglicans”, while claiming most oppose VAD. So, let’s compare “naughty” with “real” Anglicans, using high-quality Australian Election Study 2019 data.
Figure 2 shows that hardly any Anglican Notionals oppose VAD (3%). Small minorities of Occasionals (13%) and Regulars (12%) also oppose VAD.
Figure 2: Attitudes of Australian Anglicans toward VAD, by religiosity Source: Australian Election Study 2019
But even amongst Devouts (attend weekly or more often), a minority (41%) oppose VAD, and close to half (49%) think VAD should be lawful. Does this make half of Devout Anglicans “naughty” too?
To be sure, it’s important to point out that by the time the AES 2019 data set is drilled down to just Anglicans and their religiosity sub-groups, there is a somewhat higher degree of uncertainty in the exact percentages. Nevertheless, major differences are real and important.
And all of it is at odds with Prof. Lee’s contention that most Australian Anglicans (“real” or otherwise), oppose VAD.
Are the “masters” listening?
Despite this, religious “masters” within the Anglican church still strongly oppose lawful VAD with an active and hostile policy stance, recently re-confirmed.
It turns out that Prof. Lee is in fact one of those masters. She’s a member of the church’s Doctrine Commission.
And therein lies the rub. While some “masters” confidently opine that a policy consistent with their own personal view should prevail over the real views of most members, the members vote with their feet. They leave.
How is it that “masters” can be so profoundly disconnected from their flocks? It seems to suggest one or both of two things: firstly, that such folks only “hear” the views of those who agree, or secondly, that they fail to engender a communion in which people feel safe to express differences of opinion, including against “official” policy.
Good for the goose, good for the gander
If the Anglican church wants to “dismiss” the opinion of Notional Anglicans as not being “properly” Anglican, then it is equally valid for the government to reduce overall funding for Anglican schools, etc, by 42% from current levels. That’s the proportion of Anglicans who are Notionals in 2019 (Australian Election Study).
To bias the ‘measure’ of one’s base up or down purely on a desired ideological outcome is incoherent and invites derision. And unintended consequences.
Conclusion
By maintaining an actively hostile policy stance toward VAD, Australia’s Anglican church masters seem to suggest that their own opinions are more important than openly encouraging and seeking the real and diverse views of its congregation, and representing them.
Masters may argue that doctrinal purity is paramount. Society will counter-argue that the masters are representing fewer and fewer, recently becoming hardly any, real Australians.
Without doctrinal reform that in practicerespects — not just cynically notes — a diversity of views, watch the exodus continue.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Friday 18th March 2022 at 1:00am
Anglican archbishop Kanishka Raffel doesn't know the views of his own flock on VAD
I've written previously about bishops demonstrating their ignorance, as in the example of Catholic Bishop Tim Harris who presumed most or all of his flock opposes voluntary assisted dying (VAD), when in fact a significant majority support it. This time it's the Anglican Sydney diocese archbishop who's loudly flaunting his biases.
Sydney Anglican archbishop Kanishka Raffel (pictured on the diocese website above), has launched a program calling on NSW parliamentarians to reject a bill that, with a large number of safeguards, seeks to make VAD lawful in the state. NSW is the last state in the nation that still outlaws the practice.
The problem is, the archbishop is clearly backing his own personal beliefs and interests when he calls upon Anglicans to sign and share his petition calling for the unanimous rejection of the bill. That's because most Australian Anglicans, including those in NSW, support the law reform.
In 2019, academic pollsters VoxPop obtained the attitudes of more than 155,000 NSW voters regarding VAD. The views of NSW Anglicans are shown, by electorate, in Figure 1. Electorates with an asterisk are (with some very minor boundary differences) those within the archbishop's own diocese.
Figure 1: Attitudes of NSW Anglicans towards VAD law reform. Source: VoxPop 2019. * Electorates in the archbishop's own diocese.
Immediately obvious is that most NSW Anglicans, including those in the archbishop's own diocese, are in favour of VAD law reform. That is, NSW MPs would be most wise to thoughtfully consider the bill and pass it. To oppose the bill would be to invite the wrath of most voters across all electorates in the state.
The archbishop might attempt to argue that his flock would change their minds if only they "understood". But that would be a hubris-based claim that those of differing views are somehow uninformed or mentally defective because they disagree.
Indeed, as I have written in a major research series about religiosity in Australia, this profound disconnect between senior clergy and their flocks is a key reason that Australians have been deserting religion in droves. That applies especially to the Anglican church, whose membership plummeted by 28% in just the fifteen years between the 2001 and 2016 censuses. And subsequent polling suggests it has fallen further since then.
To argue the "evils" of VAD, archbishop Raffel also teamed up with well-known Catholic anti-VAD campaigners Margaret Somerville and Father Frank Brennan. More of the usual connections...
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Saturday 8th August 2020 at 8:39am
A recent article in The Guardian reports that most Queensland churchgoers support voluntary assisted dying (VAD), citing a recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Clem Jones Trust.
In fact, attitudes in support of VAD have been strengthening across Australia for many years, and the last few are no exception. In this analysis I explain, using impeccable Australian Election Study (AES) data gathered by a specialist team at Australian National University.
Each federal election, the AES gathers extensive demographic and attitudinal data from a substantial sample of Australians. That means we have comparable snapshots from each election in recent times, including 2019, 2016, 2013, 2010 and 2007 (though attitudes toward VAD have been asked only since 2016).
First up, given the well-documented strong connection between higher religiosity and less favourable attitudes towards VAD, let’s take a quick look at Australia’s changing religious landscape.
Abandoning religion: from trickle to torrent
Since federation, periodic census data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) confirms a long-term decline in religious affiliation (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Religious affiliation in Australia by census year (ABS data) NOTE: Figures are nett of typically 10% non-response
Even this data generally overstates actual religious affiliation, compared with repeated good-quality polls. Census data has pegged religious affiliation typically 4-8% higher than do most polls.
That’s because until the most recent census (2016), collections had primarily or exclusively used a single, massive booklet for household completion. Mr Jones was unlikely to upset Mrs Jones by ticking the “No religion” box when he thinks she’s sure the family is Anglican, and she can see his answers. In contrast, relatives are not looking over the shoulder of an opinion poll respondent, which allows them to be more frank.
Additionally, a formal booklet is more likely to prompt respondents to answer in terms of historical household identity (a lagging indicator), while ad hoc surveys are more likely to prompt answers in terms of recent, pragmatic attitudes and practices (current indicator).
Abandoning religious identity
AES data clearly shows that for major denominations, Australians are leaving institutionalised religion in droves (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Religious affiliation by federal election year (AES data)
Over just 12 years Catholic affiliation has dropped from 28% to 21% (a drop of 26% of its flock); Anglican from 21% to 15% (-29%); and Uniting/Methodist from 8% to 4% (-52%). In total, minor Christian denominations have remained around the same, while non-Christian denominations have experienced a small increase, mostly from immigration.
But by far the most dramatic change over the 12 years is that No Religion has soared from 26% to 41% of the population, an increase of 61%. The largest increase was between 2016 and 2019, most likely a result of Australians’ dismay at the 2017 reports of the royal commission into institutional responses to the sexual abuse of children. It found that most offenses occurred in religious institutions, more than half of them in the Catholic church alone.
Abandoning religious practice
Not only have Australians been abandoning religious identity, but for the most part increasingly abandoning religious practice (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Almost never/never attend religious services (AES data)
At the same time as many Australians have abandoned religious identity, those still identifying with Catholic, Uniting, and non-Christians faiths are attending services less than before.
Overall, service attendance has remained about the same amongst minor Christian denominations, and there has been an increase amongst Anglicans (actually because far more Notionals — people who identify with a denomination but never attend religious services — have “left” the Anglican church).
Indeed, in 2019, fewer than half of Australians (47%) ever attend religious services, just a third (32%) attend more often than once in a blue moon, and a mere 16% are consistent attenders.
Clerics might still be talking, but fewer Australians than ever want to listen.
Abandonment to continue
Australians will continue to abandon religion given that most younger Australians reject religion at the same time that older, more religious Australians pass away (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Religion by age cohort 2019 (AES data)
This picture is even more dire for clerics than it was just three years earlier in 2016 (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Religion by age cohort 2016 (AES data)
Over the next 25 years the Catholic church and minor Christian denominations will struggle, while the Anglican and Uniting churches will almost cease to exist if current trends continue.
An integrated measure of religion
For further analysis, we’ll use the Australian Religious Identity 6-Factor (ARI6) model. It segments on the combined basis of religious attitudes and behaviour across a spectrum from Rejecters to Devouts.
Unsurprisingly over the past decade, Devouts have remained firmly entrenched in their faith (Figure 6), while there has been a small downward trend amongst Regulars.
Figure 6: Australian Religious Identity 6-Factor (ARI6) by year (AES data)
Most of the abandonment of religion in recent years has been amongst Occasionals, those who identify with a religious denomination but rarely attend services. This begs the question as to whether clerics were right to assume that they spoke for many in their flocks in the first place.
Attitudes toward VAD — Overall
Between 2016 and 2019 there was a small but statistically non-significant increase in total support for VAD, while there was no change in total opposition (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Australian adult attitudes toward VAD by year (AES data)
What is readily apparent, though, is a substantial increase in the number of Australians strongly in support of VAD (from 43% to 53%), while total opposition has remained tiny at fewer than one in ten Australians (9%).
Attitudes toward VAD — Religious affiliation
Amongst Australians who still count themselves as religiously affiliated in 2019, a majority of all religions except minor Christian denominations clearly favour VAD (Figure 8), including three quarters (74%) of Catholics, four in five Anglicans (78%) and Uniting/Methodists (81%), and almost all non-Christian religious (96%) and non-religious (92%).
Even amongst the minor Christian denominations with nearly half (49%) in support, just one in five (20%) were opposed to VAD, the rest being neutral.
Figure 8: Attitudes toward VAD by religious affiliation 2019 (AES data)
Strong support amongst Catholics increased massively from 36% in 2016 to 48% (close to half in strong support) in 2019, highlighting the irony of Catholic clergy continuing to actively oppose VAD law reform.
Given the tiny minorities opposed across the religious spectrum, those clerics who continue to vocally oppose the legalisation of VAD — including some employing serious misinformation — in no way are speaking for the majority of their flocks.
Attitudes toward VAD — Religiosity
Unsurprisingly, given the vast body of existing scholarly research evidence, opposition to VAD is largely religious (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Attitudes toward VAD by ARI6 2019 (AES data)
Nearly half of all opposition to VAD (44%) is of Devouts, with an additional quarter (26%) amongst Regulars and Occasionals, and a smaller proportion (17%) from Notionals.
Tellingly, even amongst the most religious, opposition to VAD has dropped significantly in just three years since 2016 (Figure 10). Opposition to VAD amongst Devouts dropped from nearly half (46%) to just over a third (35%), and amongst Regulars from 25% to just 15%.
Figure 10: Attitudes toward VAD by ARI6 2016 (AES data)
For 2019, proportions of the most opposed religious segment, Devouts, are almost evenly split amongst supporters, neutrals and opposers.
Amongst the next most religious, Regulars, supporters outnumber opponents by three to one, and in all the other segments supporters outnumber opponents by more than ten to one.
The evidence is clear: even amongst the most religious Australians, opposition to VAD is melting away.
The lowdown for politicians
What does this mean for legislators, who the community is asking to legalise VAD with responsible safeguards? Figure 11 shows VAD attitudes of Australians by the political party they identify with.
Figure 11: Attitudes toward VAD by political party identity 2019 (AES data)
It’s obvious why VAD Bills have been sponsored by Greens members and/or facilitated by Labor governments.
In contrast, Australian Coalition parliamentary parties (with notable exceptions of a handful of Coalition members) have steadfastly obstructed consideration and passage of VAD Bills. This is not because the party machinery is representing the broader Coalition voter, whose overall support stands at 74% versus a tiny 13% opposed. Rather, it’s because of the (widely reported) takeover of the party machinery by the religious right.
The natural home of VAD opponents is minor right parties, comprising overall a slight majority (53%) opposed to VAD. [Addendum: those identifying with minor right parties comprise just 3.1% of the adult Australian population.]
Given that minor right party voters are most likely to give their major party preference flow to the Coalition, the real concern for Coalition election strategists is to minimise first preferences going to a minor right party in the one or two electorates (if any) in which such a minor party win might even be on the cards.
The lowdown for election candidates
It’s been a firm belief among the political class for a long time that candidates openly supporting VAD would be punished at the polls on election day, with little to no downside for candidates opposed to VAD. That, however, is fake news.
A 2012 Newspoll survey asked voters if, all other things being equal, they would change their vote if their otherwise preferred election candidate’s stance was the opposite of their own (support vs opposition). (Full disclosure: as CEO of YourLastRight.com I commissioned the survey.)
VAD-supporting voters stated they would punish their preferred candidate (opposing VAD) at three times the net rate that VAD-opposing voters would punish a supporting candidate. I’ve subsequently published various other observations that are consistent with this finding.
Now that strong support for VAD amongst the Australian public is significantly higher than it was in 2016 (let alone 2012), it would be foolhardy for any supportive politician to hide their light under a bushel, or for an opposed candidate to effectively thumb their nose at the majority of voters.
I’m reminded of a favourite remark of Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorn) in the 1980s British political comedy series Yes Minister, who would gently point out his Minister’s policy folly (Jim Hacker played by Paul Eddington) with the light remark, “that would be very courageous, Minister!”
It’s now a very courageous candidate indeed who believes their personal opposition to VAD ought to trump the support of the vast majority of their constituency. And, given the ongoing abandonment of religion in Australia, such candidates will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history.
The lowdown for campaigners and voters
Given that most Australians — increasingly including the religious — are in favour of responsible VAD law reform, and with a growing proportion strongly in support, it’s more important than ever to determine election candidates’ real attitudes toward VAD.
Some candidates provide prompt and candid responses to help voters decide. But many candidates obfuscate, either failing to respond at all or responding with non-answers such as they haven’t seen specific legislation yet so cannot answer, or cynically stating only the obvious such as “opinions vary” and it can be “an emotive issue”.
The key action with obfuscators is to get a real answer to the question “could there be any version of a VAD Bill that could enjoy your support?” And assume those who still obfuscate would have said “no”, had they been candid.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Friday 13th October 2017 at 10:11am
The Guardian reports a fracas within the Anglican church over a $1m political expenditure.
Anglican and Catholic bishops seem to be going out of their way to alienate their constituencies, including in respect of voluntary assisted dying and marriage equality law reform. As a result, the writing on the wall is writ large for the continued decline of religion in Australia.
Many Australian clerics are trying their hardest to foil Parliamentary attempts to drag Australia into the 21st century on social policy. They seem to care little for the ongoing demise of their own constituencies.
Religion declining since the 1960s
Religious affiliation in Australia has been declining consistently since the 1960s, consecutive Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census figures show (Figure 1). At the 2016 census, somewhat more than half (60%) of all Australians claimed a religion. More Australians than ever before identified as ‘no religion’ — for the first time ever a larger group than any single religious denomination.
Figure 1: Australian religious affiliation by census year Source: ABS
Weak religious commitment
Not only has religious affiliation been dropping, but the nature of the affiliation is weak (Figure 2). Amongst the two largest religious denominations, a quarter of Catholics (26%) and nearly half of Anglicans (47%) are Notionals: that is, they identify with the denomination but never attend religious services. More than half of Catholics (52%), and four in ten Anglicans (41%), attend religious services only occasionally (Occasionals: several times a year or less often).
Figure 2: Australian denominations and Australian religious identity (ARI-6) Source: Australian Election Study (AES) 2016
Just 22% of Catholics and a mere 12% of Anglicans demonstrate commitment to their denomination through dedicated service attendance (Regular = monthly or more often, and Devout = weekly or more often).
The picture is particularly grim for the Anglican church, dominant in Australia from Federation until the 1960s. With both a deeply impoverished affiliation rate in 2016 (13.3%), and just 12% of the flock dedicated to service attendance, a miniscule 1.6% of Australians are committed Anglicans.
The picture is only slightly better for the Catholic church. With 22.6% affiliation in 2016, and 22% of those committed to service attendance, it's a slightly larger but still damningly small 5.0% of Australians who are committed Catholics. Further, the Catholic church’s affiliation may be significantly lower at the next (2021) census, as Australians vent their dismay and disgust at how badly it’s handled the scourge of child sexual abuse that’s occurred under its ‘pastoral umbrella.’
Hollow ‘leadership’
Across all religious denominations, just 16% of Australians are committed to their denomination — Regular or Devout religious service attenders — while 30.1% Reject religion altogether.
And yet those at the head of their ships of faith still demand that we listen to and comply with their moral dictates, assuming that they have an automatic right to steer our morality in their own chosen direction. If they think they’re ‘leading,’ most Australians aren't following.
The indications are that they're going the way of Kodak, now a small, wan shadow of its former dominant self. If the Anglican and Catholic churches were companies with voting shareholders (or even not-for-profits with voting members), the Boards and executives (archbishops and bishops) would have been, for overseeing such profound and continuing erosion of their brand franchises, replaced long ago.
Entrenched rather than learning
You’d think all this would be a warning message to archbishops and bishops to seek to understand their flocks and build bridges for mutual understanding and engagement; to demonstrate a bit of flexibility in recognising alternative and equally respectable moral codes that were not established in ancient and very different times. But no.
Their recent performances on both voluntary assisted dying and marriage equality law reform suggest otherwise.
The fact is that to rebuild their franchises, the churches need to reach out to their Occasionals and to their Notionals — those who identify with the denomination but rarely if ever attend services. But the bishops have been pleasing only (some of) their Regulars and Devouts. It's a classic and literal case of “preaching to the converted.”
Voluntary assisted dying
In the matter of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) law reform, there are presently VAD Bills before both the NSW and Victorian parliaments. Figure 3 shows Australian attitudes toward VAD by religious affiliation.
Figure 3: Australian religious affiliation and attitudes toward VAD Source: AES 2016
Opposition to VAD amongst most denominations is very small, and really only makes an appearance amongst minor Christian and non-Christian denominations. Just 10% of Catholics and 7% of Anglicans oppose VAD, 5% and 3% of them strongly.
Figure 4 shows the real story. Opposition to VAD amongst Rejecters, Socialisers, Notionals and Occasionals is almost non-existent, and support is in a huge majority (85% of Socialisers, 89% of Notionals and 78% of Occasionals). Opposition to VAD amongst religion Rejecters is less than 2%. That is, opposition to VAD is almost entirely religious, although religious opposers pretend their opposition is nothing to do with faith.
Figure 4: Australian religious identity (ARI-6) and attitudes toward VAD Source: AES 2016
Only amongst Regulars and Devouts does opposition to VAD make a real appearance. Yet even amongst Devouts, with the strongest opposition, it’s in the minority (47%).
And what have the bishops been doing? They’ve campaigned strongly against VAD, spreading misinformation. Take for example the Catholic Church’s latest version of its anti-euthanasia polemic ‘brochure’ (Figure 5).
Figure 5: The Catholic Church’s latest polemic brochure against VAD Source: Catholic diocese of Byron Bay
This amateur production reveals a superficial understanding of the issues and a penchant for hyperbole. Worse, it employs significant misinformation in order to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), as does an advertisement taken out by a number of bishops from various denominations, in Melbourne’s major daily newspaper (Figure 6).
Figure 6: The June 2017 bishops' anti-VAD print advertisement Source: Herald Sun
The bishops’ manoeuvres will only alienate their congregation’s least committed members, the Notionals and Occasionals — the very people they should be wooing back to the pews, and who are strongly supportive of VAD as a valid and respectable response to intolerable and unrelievable suffering at end of life.
Perhaps the bishops would find this suggestion unpalatable, too much like a sales pitch. If that’s the case, one can only point out that selling the claim of saving of souls is the very task of evangelism. One could ask, “is your God likely to approve heartily of the continued withering of Australian faith?”
Marriage equality
The second contemporary example is marriage equality (ME). Figure 7 shows Australian attitudes to ME by religious denomination.
Figure 7: Australian religious affiliation and attitudes toward ME Source: AES 2016. Note: There was no ‘neither/nor’ option in this survey question
A clear majority of Australians in all groups except minor Christian denominations support marriage equality. That includes 74% of Catholics, 63% of Anglicans and 60% of Uniting Church members.
Figure 8 shows attitudes toward marriage equality by religious identity.
Figure 8: Australian religious identity (ARI-6) and attitudes toward ME Source: AES 2016
Support of marriage equality is in a clear majority amongst Rejecters (88%), Socialisers (82%), Notionals (73%) and Occasionals (71%). Around half (49%) of Regulars also support marriage equality.
Only amongst Devouts is support for marriage equality in the minority, with a quarter (25%) supporting and three quarters (75%) opposing it.
And what have the bishops been doing? They’ve run a massive campaign against marriage equality law reform. Indeed, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, announced that the diocese had donated, from precious church funds, $1 million to the ‘No’ campaign.
The public was even more dismayed to discover the diocese had granted just $5,000 to dealing with entrenched domestic violence in its ranks, at the same time as allocating the $1 million to preventing the equal expression of love.1
Given that marriage equality is almost certain to be legalised in Australia either directly after this voter ‘poll’ or in the term of the next Parliament, that’s an extraordinary squandering of a vast charitable sum for no net result. Calls have been made for the diocese’s tax-exempt status to be reviewed.
The evidence is incontestable: opposition to VAD is almost completely religious, and opposition to ME is largely religious, despite protestations to the contrary.
Bishops’ conduct in relation to these reforms, which most Australians want, have been unhelpful by resisting Australia’s move into the 21st century — on the basis of ancient interpretations of scripture to which only a small minority of Australians subscribe.
The bishops' conduct has run strongly counter to the compassion and understanding they could have shown in order to engage the Notionals and Occasionals amongst their flocks; to halt the erosion of their religious capital, and to rebuild it.
These bishops most certainly don't represent the general views and beliefs of most Australians on VAD or ME. Rather, they give the appearance of administrators who are determined to preside over smaller and smaller congregations: a kind of “slow euthanasia.”
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Thursday 9th February 2017 at 9:53pm
You only have to look to understand who is campaigning against your right to choose an assisted death in the face of intolerable and unrelievable suffering.
A case in point is a massive advertisement published in both of Melbourne’s daily newspapers: News Corp’s The Herald Sun (right-wing) and Fairfax Media’s The Age (left-wing). The ad was published in 2008 when Victorian MLC Colleen Hartland introduced the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill into the State legislature.
The Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, also sent the advertisement as a letter to all members of the Victorian Parliament.1
So, who are the advertisement’s signatories? I’ve listed them all in Table 1.
Table 1: Signatories to the 2008 Victorian anti-assisted-dying advertisement
Rt Rev. Graham Bradbeer
Moderator, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
The Rev. Fr Graeme A. Michell, FSSM
Parish Priest, Anglican Catholic Parish of St Mary the Virgin, Melbourne
Rev. Ross Carter
Uniting Church in Australia
Pastor Graham Nelson
Senior Pastor, Life Ministry Centre
Rev. Dr Max Champion
National Chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church in Australia
Rev. David Palmer
Convenor Church and Nation Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
Pastor Mark Conner
Senior Minister of CityLife Church
Rev. Greg Pietsch
President, Victorian District, Lutheran Church of Australia
Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke
Adjunct Lecturer, Ridley Melbourne Mission and Ministry College
Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen
Director Institute for Judaism and Civilization
Very Rev. Dr Michael Protopopov
Dean - Russian Orthodox Church in Australia
Rev. Megan Curlis-Gibson
St Hilary’s Anglican Church, Kew
Marcia Riordan
Respect Life Office, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Archbishop Dr Philip Freier
Anglican Church of Melbourne
Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba
Primate of Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand & the Philippines
Imam Riad Galil
West Heidelburg Mosque
Member of the Victorian Board of Imams
Bishop Peter Stasiuk CSSR DD
Eparchy of Saints Peter and Paul of Melbourne, for Ukrainian Catholics in Australia and New Zealand
Rev. Father James Grant SSC
Chaplains Without Borders,
Melbourne Anglican Diocese
Dale Stephenson
Senior Pastor Crossway Baptist Church
Assoc. Professor Afif Hadj MB BS (Melb) FRACS
Director of Surgery, Director of Medical Training, Maroondah Hospital (A Monash University Teaching Hospital)
Pastor Peter Stevens
Victorian State Officer
Festival of Light Australia
Archbishop Denis Hart
Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini
Associate Dean, JPII Institute for Marriage and Family Melbourne
Rev. Fr Geoff Harvey
Priest of the Good Shepherd Antiochian Orthodox Mission Parish, based at Monash University
Rob Ward
Victorian State Director Australian Christian Lobby
Assoc. Professor Rosalie Hudson
Aged Care & Palliative Care consultant/educator
Jim Zubic
President of Orthodox Chaplaincy Association
Peter McHugh
Senior Pastor Christian City Church, Whitehorse
Persons in blue: Career is religion
Almost all of them are religious by career
To save you a lot of time assessing who these people are, I’ve coloured in blue all the folks whose job it is to espouse religion — at least, their own hierarchy’s view of it.
That’s 27 of the 29 signatories who by career are intensely immersed in their own religious perspective of the world; established and promoted through institutional doctrine.
But what about the other two?
What about the other two signatories, Assoc. Prof. Afif Hadi and Assoc. Prof. Rosalie Hudson (in yellow)?
Notice that Prof. Afif Hadi’s entry lists only his surgery profession. Highly relevant, but not mentioned, is that he was President (previously Vice Chairman) of the Australian and New Zealand Board of Trustees, Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand. As head of the Board of the Archdiocese, his religious signature is intimately entwined with another: Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba, the Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese.
Assoc. Prof. Rosalie Hudson’s listing too, mentions only seemingly secular links. What is omitted is that she is or was Chair of the University of Divinity (a multi-faith religious institution) Human Research Ethics Committee, Secretary of the Uniting Church’s committee on bioethics, a member of the Interfaith Committee, and an Academic Associate at Charles Sturt University’s School of Theology.
Thus, both Prof. Hadi and Assoc. Prof. Hudson are also deeply rooted in religious faith. The point is not to make any criticism of their faith or practice, but merely to observe the deeply religious connections to opposing assisted dying law reform. It’s worth mentioning that both Hadi and Hudson do valuable charity work.
So, all of them are deeply religious
A pertinent question to ask is: ‘What proportion of the signatories are neutral, scholarly researchers who have studied the empirical evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is already lawful?’ Answer: None of them. Enough said.
And what proportion of the signatories to this anti-assisted dying advertisement are very deeply invested in organised religion? The simple answer is as usual: 100%,all of them.
Disconnected from their flocks
Critically, these career-religious fail to reflect the views of their own flocks. We know from repeated polls, for example, that three out of four Australian Catholics, more than three out of four Uniting Church members, and four out of five Anglicans (Church of England) support assisted dying law reform.
This kind of clerical disconnect from the contemporary will of the people is one of the key reasons Australians are deserting religion in droves, as successive censuses show.
Conclusion
The evidence is irrefutable. Those who are actively organised to oppose your right to choose an assisted death are deeply religious, even when they use seemingly secular arguments (more on those later).
They are entitled to their opinions for themselves. But what right do they have to deny the vast majority of Australians, who do not agree with their views, the right to choose?
To phrase it in the personal, why does the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourrne, Denis Hart, think it appropriate to demand that Mr Geoff Drummond, a Buddhist, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Archbishop's version of faith, rather than Mr Drummond's own spiritual beliefs? Why does Rabbi Shimon Cowen think it appropriate to demand that Mr Alan Rosendorff, a fellow Jew, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Rabbi's version of faith, rather than Mr Rosendorff's own carefully-considered and deeply-held views? And why does Imam Riad Galil think it appropriate to demand that Mr Peter Short, not a Muslim, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Imam's beliefs, rather than his own?
Perhaps hubris remains alive and well amongst religious conservatives?
-----
Declaration: In fairness to those mentioned in this article, I openly declare that I am agnostic.
References
Bradbeer, G, Rt Rev., Carter, R, Rev., Champion, M, Rev. Dr, Conner, M, Pastor, Cooper-Clarke, D, Dr, Cowen, S, Rabbi Dr, Curlis-Gibson, M, Rev., Freier, P, Archbishop Dr, Galil, R, Imam, Grant SSC, J, Rev. Fr, Hadj, A, Assoc. Prof., Hart, D, Archbishop, Harvey, G, Rev. Fr, Hudson, R, Assoc. Prof., McHugh, P, Michell, GA, Rev. Fr, Nelson, G, Pastor, Palmer, D, Rev., Pietsch, G, Rev., Pietsch, M, Protopopov, M, Very Rev. Dr, Riordan, M, Saliba, P, Metropolitan Archbishop, Stasiuk, P, Bishop, Stephenson, D, Stevens, P, Pastor, Tonti-Filippini, N, Dr, Ward, R & Zubic, J 2008, Reject physician assisted dying - An open letter to Victorian MPs, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, viewed 13 Jun 2008, http://www.cam.org.au/Euthanasia.aspx.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Tuesday 8th September 2015 at 5:16am
It was inevitable, the latest attempt by senior British clergy to persuade politicians to reject Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. Led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby—whose predecessor Lord Carey now supports the reform—nine clergy sent a letter to ‘remind’ Parliament of supposed terrible consequences.
So what points did the clerics offer to Parliamentarians, and are they valid? Let’s take a look at each of the five ‘reasons’ advanced in order to deny Brits assisted dying choice.
Firstly, the clerics argue that the ‘answer’ is palliative care. Britain boasts the world’s gold standard in palliative care practice and it’s a great credit to practitioners. But the medical literature as well as the experience of the dying and their loved ones is conclusive: palliative care simply can’t always help. Experts say that “relief of suffering remains an elusive goal for many patients” and it’s “clear that improving palliative care will not remove the need for legalizing assisted dying.”
The premise of palliative care is to provide interventions. However, sometimes, not only does interventionism fail to help, it can itself be a source of suffering. And the individual may not want interventions, but rather to alight from the train of terminal illness one or two stops before the inevitable and intolerable terminus.
Secondly, the clerics argue that jurisdictions with assisted dying laws are facing serious problems, including wrongly claiming that the Dutch are now campaigning to include dementia as a basis to seek an assisted death. This right has been enshrined in Dutch law through advance care directives since 2002. In practice, the request is largely declined by doctors.
The clerics complain that dying patients in assisted dying jurisdictions are now using the law—hardly a surprising outcome given the proportion of people now dying of cancer in their later years.
They complain about supposed ‘doctor shopping’ in Oregon. If the patient’s first (or second) doctor declines a request to consider an assisted death on the basis of the doctor’s own convictions, are these clerics suggesting that the patient ought to have their right to lawful assessment denied, because their first doctor or two were religiously opposed?
Thirdly, the clerics argue that the majority of doctors are opposed to assisted dying law reform, ironically pointing out that a quarter to a third of doctors support reform. Why should Brits be denied a choice because two thirds of doctors currently won’t participate in that choice? (What proportion of doctors would participate in abortions, currently legal?) And doctors—who make up fewer than one in two hundred Brits—don’t elect Parliament, so why are their diverse views a case for outright denial?
Let’s name this argument for what it is: an appeal to apparent ‘authority’. Clerical ‘authorities’ (who don’t represent their flocks who are overwhelmingly in favour of reform) are making an appeal of medical ‘authorities’ as the reason to reject something the public believes should be a right. Paternalism indeed.
The fourth argument spreads an icing of hubris on the cake of objections. The clerics argue that the public really don’t understand and don’t know what they mean when the great majority keep saying ‘yes’ to repeated polls on assisted dying law reform.
Public opinion in fact demonstrates the opposite of gullibility: rejection of the attempted scare campaigns of religious ‘authorities’.
Fifthly (and thankfully lastly), the clerics argue that a right to choose assisted dying will inevitably become a duty to choose it. If the theory that ‘a right becomes a duty’ were an argument to reject one right, then all rights would necessarily be rejected on precisely the same principle.
Enshrined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Brits already have a right to refuse any medical treatment, even if life-saving. A Jehovah’s Witness may refuse a simple blood transfusion. An elderly person may refuse burdensome surgery. Yet the right to refuse treatment can theoretically become a duty to refuse, in exactly the same manner.
If the clerics genuinely believe their theory then they would argue to Parliament with equal force that the right to refuse medical treatment should be rescinded. Why don’t they?
The real reason for opposing the assisted dying Bill appears in the letter’s preamble: the clerics “hold all human life sacred”, in other words, a ‘gift from God’. Yet contemporary British Social Attitudes surveys reveal that the majority of Brits are not religious.
So the real question for the Parliament is this: should indefensible arguments put forward by a few clerical ‘authorities’ form a basis for denying choice wanted by the overwhelming majority of voters?