In mid 2026, we surveyed our members and broader supporter base as part of a process to develop a new strategic plan to guide our future.

We had 56 responses from members and 96 responses from supporters. 

A key survey question sought to understand whether it was appropriate for our advocacy work to focus on secularism and issues of separation of church and state. 

This is something the RSA has grappled with for some time. With limited resources and staffing, we have opted to focus our advocacy work on this area in recent years. Meanwhile, through other activities, such as the publishing of articles on our Rationale magazine, and our RSA Weekly newsletter, we have continued to promote the broader Rationalist agenda.

The feedback had two key threads.

There was strong support for continuing with our current focus on secularism and campaigns relating to separation of church and state.

There was also support for expanding the focus of our advocacy work to cover topics under the broader Rationalist scope.

Below is a selection of the comments. All identifying information has been removed.

We thank everyone who took the time to take part in the survey.

Feedback 

“I do think it’s appropriate, because religious beliefs and practices are still being privileged in our society, especially Christianity and, in particular, Catholicism. I don’t agree with government funds being used by religious institutions including schools and hospitals, or religions receiving tax benefits.”

“Yes. I think it’s entirely appropriate. Without organisations like the RSA, the campaigns listed would possibly not be taken up by anybody else.”

“Appropriate, but much too narrow. The RSA should be advancing Scientific Rationalism in all spheres of society, in league with humanists, sceptics, atheists, and scientific organisations.”

“I support separation of church and state, no special privileges for religious beliefs, and no favourable treatment of any one set of religious beliefs over others.”

“Absolutely. While many Australians are of no religion, there are few collective groups to counter the disproportionate influence of churches and religious lobbies.”

“My general thoughts are that the work is appropriately focused. The RSA should, however, position itself to be agile enough to respond to emerging issues.”

“I believe that the RSA’s approach is valid. Education is the gateway to rational thought. If individuals or organisations wish to pursue a theistic approach to understanding life, death and the universe, they should pursue these adventures in their own time with their own capital.”

“I’d like to see more on what it means to live a secular life with value. So, I suppose, ideas and guidance, and practical thoughts. I think that’s what I was looking for when I initially joined.”

“Yes, keep the current focus. Keep religion out of everything. It’s people’s personal choice and should not be bandied about at any level of government.”

“Secularism is an important cause, but it has several disadvantages as a fundraising proposition…  By contrast, there is increasing concern about: misinformation; conspiracy theories declining trust; AI misinformation; political polarisation; scientific literacy; media literacy; democratic resilience. These issues attract philanthropic interest while remaining closely aligned with rationalist principles.”

“I expected more philosophical discussions and planning public-education events where the importance of rational decision-making to both government and daily living are explored. The strong emphasis on religion is not likely to increase membership.”

“I would prefer the RSA to discuss AI, climate change, geopolitics and emerging technologies.”

“It is good to hold religious and government authorities to account, but the primary focus of RSA should be on rationalism. People are losing the ability to think critically to build deep knowledge and to recognise misinformation or disinformation. They easily believe in conspiracy theories and dismiss scientific evidence as just another opinion.”

“I’d also like to see pseudoscience and related issues challenged in public life.”

“Yes, it is, due to the limited resources available. [But] the greatest threat recently to rational debate and policy-making is the spread of dangerous propaganda and lies, as exemplified with the referendum to create a Voice to Parliament. This would be a useful campaign focus for the RSA, possibly in partnership with other groups.”

“Yes, I think it is appropriate for the RSA to be seeking to remove, or at least restrict, the influence that religion has in Australian public life and institutions.”

“A public policy framework that is based only on agreeable facts and evidence should be the only criterion. Belief-based opinions are neither provable nor unprovable, which should automatically exclude them from public discourse.” 

“Now, more than ever, at this very moment you need to focus on the religious Right directing and controlling many political parties, both blatantly and behind the scenes and their donations and lobbying.”

“It is heavily focused on religion. I would appreciate addressing more diverse issues.”

“Yes, these issues are part of the social foundation of Australian life. How religion is privileged (or not) in our lives is an essential part of combating religious harm.”

“100% appropriate. If the RSA was not performing this focus/function as being active in challenging these important social issues, who would?”

“Yes, I think all of these are important. The efforts of religious organisations are, I believe, all about protecting, promoting and expanding the influence of the brand. There are many good, well-meaning Christians … but there are many others more concerned with crushing any alternative views – atheist or alternative faith. If successful, the result is a less free, inward-looking and xenophobic society.”

“The focus on secularism is entirely appropriate. Secularism is the basic support for justice, democracy, universal human, and civil rights for all. … it’s under constant threat from the bigots in every major religion.”

“Yes, provided you keep the focus broad and always stand up for public education fully funded by government.”