Three religious leaders who have lost all morality

The three religious leaders who have condemned the vaccine for the Covid -19 - Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher, Anglican Archbishop Dr Glenn Davies and Greek Orthodox Archbishop Makarios – even having written to Prime Minister Scott Morrison - are obviously ignorant of the teachings of Jesus Christ, or of a dozen of the world's moral thinkers over the last 3000 years. And they have placed religious beliefs ahead of long-established moral practices. Have they not read the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Help those who need help. Or the Proverbs of Solomon three thousand years ago ?Proverbs 3: 27 Never walk away from someone who deserves help.

I have provided search engine links so that they may look upthe teaching of their own religions.

They may be forgiven for ignoring the teaching of the Asian philosophies, but their beliefs, Buddhism, The Jains, Hinduism, give the same message as did Jesus Christ. The current Dalai Lama sets out the same injunction as Solomon so many centuries earlier: "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them". In the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain philosophies, this concept is that of Ahimsa: "Respect for All Living Things and Avoidance of Violence Towards Others". Such respect and non-violence, as we are all aware, is "at the core of Mahatma Gandhi's political thought".

This moral precept is also the core of several modern moral philosophers. Beauchamp and Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics, William Frankena's Ethics, Bernard Gert's Common Morality along with John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism.

Then, at its most basic, helping others, preventing harm, is the overriding moral belief that should drive our approach to the Corona Virus pandemic. And adopting a vaccine is one way to achieve that objective. Now the three senior religious figures object because the vaccine comes from aborted foetus cells. Their objection appears to be to abortions, an objection which is relatively easy to negate. The objection is, as best I understand it, based on the killing of the foetus, and as we were created by God and are made in his image, so we are killing God.

The Vatican itself has in the past released statements permitting the use of vaccines drawn from foetal cell lines if no alternatives are available.

If we ignore the Old Testament as a reason for not killing, and look for a non-religious analysis, killing another person is still wrong. It is wrong because of the sadness, even pain, that we cause close relatives, and also that we destroy the victim's expectations of life. But is killing a foetus wrong?

A foetus has no expectation of life (it does not even have a fully formed brain) and that the closest relative is the mother, the person making the decision, we must conclude that abortion is not morally wrong.

This issue is also related to stem cell research.The process of isolating human embryonic stem cells has been controversial, because it typically results in the destruction of the embryo. US President George W Bush signed an executive order banning the use of federal funding for any cell lines other than those in existence, stating: "My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," … "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator." This ban was largely revoked by Barack Obama, who stated : "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Then why did these religious leaders condemn this vaccine? And would likely condemn stem cell research?

An answer on why is difficult to reach. Is it that religious people believe that their views are the correct ones, and that we all must follow them?

Is it a sense of power on the part of religious people, including their leaders, that they believe we must obey them?

There are many examples of religious people dictating to us what and how we should believe. Margaret Court, a Christian Minister of Margaret Court Ministries said she will refuse to fly Qantas due to CEO Alan Joyce's backing of marriage equality.

"I believe in marriage as a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible," Court said in a letter to The West Australian newspaper at the time..

There have been many like her. Israel Folau is another . Both Court and Folau are at odds with the majority of the Australian people, 62% of whom voted to approve gay marriage .

Then there are the churches that have ignored the Covid-19 lockdown.

Are the three senior religious figures just like Court and Folau? Ramming their views down our throats, with no alternate views to be considered? This writer believes that it is just another example of their exercise of power. Malcolm Turnbull, the recently deposed Prime Minister, in an interview on his book A Bigger Picture by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, described those who pulled him down as succumbing to "the aphrodisiac of power". The three clerics are similar – exercising their power over us.

The French philosopher Michel Foucault, the only person to have written extensively on power, describes it as universal – affecting relationships in schools, prisons,in many aspects of our daily life. He has thought extensively on ''life'' in its various guises, and how it has been controlled and ordered by power.

This examination of power is exemplified by the three churches of which the dignitaries have been spokesmen. Each church started off together, as the early Christian Church, but then broke apart as their leaders struggled against each other for power, and for control over our thinking.

The early church started with Jesus Christ who died about 30 AD.The early Christian church shared converts to Christianity with the Eastern Orthodox Church until the East–West Schism in 1054, disputing particularly the authority of the pope.In 1054 AD a formal split occurred when Pope Leo IX (leader of the Western branch) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (leader of the Eastern branch), who in turn condemned the pope in a mutual excommunication. Before the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, the Church of the East also shared in this communion, as did the Oriental Orthodox churches before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451; all separated primarily over differences in Christianbeliefs. Pius IX during the First Vatican Council, in 1868, Anthony Fisher's Catholic Church proclaimed papal supremacy as a dogma.

But the early Christian church had started to dictate how we believe long before even 431AD. One of the earliest "heretics", Arian, who defined Jesus Christ as a minor god, was denounced as a heretic by the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).We were told that we had to believe in the Trinity - God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This , the Church fathers told us, we had to believe, even there is next to no mention made of the Holy Ghost , or Holy Spirit, in the gospels – Mathew , Mark, Luke or John. The teachings of Jesus, in short, make no mention of the Holy Spirit, yet we were told by the church fathers then, and still are today, that we must believe.

Also we are repeatedly told that we have to believe in a series of miracles- the virgin birth, the raising of people from the dead, transubstantiation, etc. Miracles that modern science tells us are not possible.

In the 16th century, the Reformation led to Protestantism also breaking away,with the publication of the Ninety-five Theses by Martin Luther in 1517. Protestants reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy and the sacraments. Anglican Archbishop Glenn Davies may consider Henry VIII's founding of the Church of England in 1534 as the starting date of his church, which again was a battle for power. The overall lesson is the same – Those of us who are protestants now have a new series of beliefs which the church fathers tell us we must follow.

These questions raise the issue of whether the three churchmen are only demonstrating their power over us. An equally strong reason on why we should ignore them is the several expert opinions that say they are wrong. But over and above the reasons set out in this article, is the fact that evangelists in the United States beat them to it. Back in early June they raised their objections to this Covid 10 vaccination

So Australia's religious leaders obviously decided that they needed to hop on this bandwagon, even though it was triggered by US evangelists advising a President long known for his lack of veracity , and whose support base is fundamental Christianity. Trump's faith advisory council is a veritable who's who of right-wing evangelists.

One evangelical Trump advisor even recommended skipping anti-flu shots: "Inoculate yourself with the word of God," she tells us.

Our three heroes would be well advised to think through the advantages to the nation, and the entire world, if we were vaccinated, no matter what the source of that vaccine. Which would be the greater good, a workable vaccine for the pandemic, or the orders of three morally questionable prelates?