End of life plan: religion’s role in assisted dying

Religion has no part to play in public policy, according to TV producer Andrew Denton — even when it comes to moral questions about the meaning and value of human life. Denton told the National Press Club in a widely reported speech calling for the introduction of assisted dying laws in Australia that religious people need to butt out of the debate and not impose their views on anyone else.

“I urge you, step aside,” Denton said, directing his remarks to those “whose beliefs instruct you that only God can decide how a human being should die.” If you’ve got religion, in other words, sit down, shut up, and don’t be a pest.

This is the new sectarianism where all Christian traditions are equally unworthy and unacceptable. When it comes to making medical decisions about who can die and when, the new sectarians apparently already know everything there is to know about human suffering. Those who agree with them are welcome to speak up; but any with opposing views must remain silent.

Assisted dying is not the only contentious social issue where the new sectarians think they know what’s best for us. The story is the same when it comes to same-sex marriage, gender diversity, and exploring sexuality in the classroom. Those of us deluded enough to believe in a God, or gods, must pack up and vacate the public square. Religion is simply dismissed as having nothing to useful to say about any of these hot topics. And anyone who questions this hard line sectarian orthodoxy is condemned as a hateful, fanatical bigot.

But Denton levelled a more sinister charge. Frustrated that his own views have not yet carried the day in the federal Parliament, he accused politicians who oppose him for faith-based reasons of comprising a “theocracy hidden inside our democracy.” It is a fantastic nonsense. Religious politicians aren’t hidden away in some secret congress; their views, openly expressed, may simply be more influential than Denton wants. And since a theocracy is a government run by clerics ruling in the name of a god or gods, Denton’s remarks are actually an insult to every democratically elected politician who happens to have an active religious faith.

Opponents of religion insist that God is on the way out. When it comes to Australia, the statistics appear to back them up. Recent research indicates the number of Australians identifying as Christians declined over two years by 8% — from 61% in 2011 to 53% in 2013. Over the same period, the number of those declaring no religion rose from 29% to 38%. Whereas Christianity appears to be losing some ground, however, other religions are gaining prominence. The 2011 Census recorded that a little over 2% of Australians identified as Muslim and about 2.5% identify as Buddhists. Both numbers are expected to have increased by the next census.

Even though the statistics indicate the god-botherers are in apparent decline, the numbers show there is still a significant proportion of Australians who express some form of religious belief; and their values, cultures and customs are shaped by those beliefs. But Denton and his smart set are unlikely any time soon to accuse, say, Australian Muslims of forming a hidden theocracy and urge them to step aside from public debate. Frankly, he wouldn’t dare say such a thing.

Australian society has deep roots in religious principles and values. But of course our country is not an autocratic theocracy (such as Iran) where politics serves religion. We are, thankfully, a parliamentary democracy where religion can serve and inform politics without ever assuming precedence over it. Indeed, religion is a key part of what has been described as the ‘mysterious and ineffable’ fabric of our society: when absent, it cannot be manufactured at will.

Given the importance of religion to the Aussie social fabric, why should the new sectarians expect to be able to banish religion from public discourse? Questions about what it is to lead a good life, what justice is — and what kind of society we wish to have — concern every Australian. In a free and open society, everyone is entitled to debate and discuss matters of common interest that go to the heart of our life together, such as: who should be able to get married; what children should be taught in our schools; and whether human life is ours to take or ours to nurture.

Religious citizens will have their own views about these issues and are as entitled as any other citizen to express them. The health of our society depends on affording every citizen the freedom to debate, not only the laws that govern us, but also the deeper values that inform those laws.

Since many of our schools, hospitals and welfare organisations are religious foundations serving the needs of Australians — of any religion and none – it is obvious that religion is already heavily involved in matters of public policy concerning the wellbeing of our society. It is also obvious that religious citizens are likely to disagree at times about just what kind of society it should be. After all, many religions coexist in Australia and form a rich part of our national life.

And it should be no surprise that religion will, at times, come into conflict with the secular state. Imams, bishops and rabbis all have opinions about what the state is doing, wanting it to do less of some things and more of others. They criticise the state for its moral shortcomings on policies ranging from border protection to social security to climate change. You won’t hear a peep from the rationalists and atheists when the churches weigh in on their side of the argument about, say, the plight of refugees or funding for the arts.

But when the issue is one of which goes to the heart of the way we live and die, such as fertility, family life, or palliative care — where religious agencies are also heavily involved in providing services — the voices of religious leaders and leaders who are religious count for nothing and are dismissed or ridiculed.

Democracy promotes the interests of all citizens, regardless of their beliefs, and binds them to act within the law. Freedom to strike an appropriate balance between the claims of modernity and tradition must be upheld for every citizen. But the new sectarianism is part of a general move to stifle dissident religious voices that speak out in public. It is a move to enforce intolerance. It must be called out and resisted.

 Peter Kurti is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and author of The Democratic Deficit: How Minority Fundamentalism Threatens Liberty in Australia