This is all wrong:
Catholic MPs will be urged to "put God before Gordon" by voting down controversial new laws to create animal-human embryos for medical research.
Ulster's nationalist politicians have been invited to meet the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales next week, ahead of debate on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
And it’s not just Ulster "Nationalist" (why the Tele’s coyness here? In this case, "nationalist" quite clearly equals "Roman Catholic") politicians who’ve been invited:
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has begun an unprecedented attempt to block new laws on embryo research by contacting all Catholic MPs in a personal lobbying campaign.
And it’s not just the "embryo research" question which will be up for "discussion":
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, has invited them to a reception next week to discuss in confidence "issues likely to come before the House in the new session of Parliament".
And it's not difficult to guess what one of those "issues" may be.
The Roman Catholic Church, like any other group in society, is perfectly entitled to put its views on these and other topics over via the media and directly to its flock and the general public.
But I’m 100% confident that all Catholic MPs are be fully aware of their church’s position on these kind of "moral" issues, so what is the point of this discussion if it isn't to put personal pressure on the MPs to make sure they toe the Vatican’s line?
MPs of whatever religion are elected to serve members of their constituency of whatever religion and it is no religious institution’s right to interfere in that basic principle which underlies all secular democracies.
Secondly and more importantly, MPs, like the rest of us, possess a conscience. It is that inner voice which should be telling them how to vote on such matters not their religious "advisors" nor indeed, their party whip.
6 comments:
MPs of whatever religion are elected to serve members of their constituency of whatever religion and it is no religious institution’s right to interfere in that basic principle which underlies all secular democracies.
At the end of the day, an MP is not going to go against the wishes of his/her constituency just to satisfy their own personal religious concerns. That would be political suicide and they would face the wrath of their constituents next election.
"MPs of whatever religion are elected to serve members of their constituency of whatever religion and it is no religious institution’s right to interfere in that basic principle which underlies all secular democracies."
The religious institution (or indeed any institution) is well within it's rights to remind it's adherents of it's position. It is well within its rights to expel them if what they do is well outside the rules of that institution, though this is likely to be rare.
Moreover, the Catholic has a duty to inform his or her conscience. Being "aware" is not necessarily the same thing. The Church clearly wants to insure arguments are accurately presented and heard. Equally, I am sure many of these MPs will be lobbied by scientists and others on the other side of the debate. Is that undue pressure too?
Ultimately it'll be their own decision when they vote, and you kind of have the presumption that left to their own devices they won't have a problem with it. This is most definitely not necessarily the case.
So, yeah, tired the Church of Rome wants to dominate the world nonsense. And, by the by, the idea that issues of conscience should be devolved in case the plebs get what they want on abortion and stem cell research is fundamental undemocratic.
The religious institution (or indeed any institution) is well within it's rights to remind it's adherents of it's position.
As I said in the post, it would be an extremely misinformed MP who wasn’t aware of the Church’s position on this and other related matters, so, why the need to hammer it home?
And why the concentration on RC MPs?
OK, the non RC social conservatives in the Big Conservatives, the DUP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will most definitely vote against without much persuasion, but the other non-RC undecideds, why were they not approached?
It smacks too much of unacceptable intimidation of their own flock to me.
It is well within its rights to expel them if what they do is well outside the rules of that institution, though this is likely to be rare.
First point, obviously, yes.
But if such rules are to be applied outside the place of worship and within the “workplace”, then they should be done so consistently, ie the Church should be also targeting lawyers, accountants, teachers who may break the rules. But they don’t, it’s a selective morality game they’re playing, MPs’ Catholicism seems to be more important than those of the other groups I mentioned.
Also the threat to excommunicate is not as rare as it should be- they’ve threatened excommunication for parliamentarians in Mexico and also, I seem to remember, Poland and Spain.
Moreover, the Catholic has a duty to inform his or her conscience. Being "aware" is not necessarily the same thing. The Church clearly wants to insure arguments are accurately presented and heard.
That difference seems very subtle to me...and the Church has exactly the same opportunities as the rest of us for providing their arguments.
Equally, I am sure many of these MPs will be lobbied by scientists and others on the other side of the debate. Is that undue pressure too?
No, because those scientists are only presenting an argument, if you disagree with them you’re not necessarily heading for eternal damnation.
Ultimately it'll be their own decision when they vote, and you kind of have the presumption that left to their own devices they won't have a problem with it. This is most definitely not necessarily the case.
Firstly, in this particular case, for Labour MPs anyway, it won’t be their own decision, there’s going to be a three-line whip which I also disagree with on votes on matters of personal conscience.
Secondly,many of them ( eg Harman) have voted consistently on “Catholic” lines, there will be most definitely be a problem between what their church and what their party and possibly what their conscience tells them.The Church should not be intervening in such circumstances.
”So, yeah, tired the Church of Rome wants to dominate the world nonsense.”
Lazy point.
I’m an atheist; in terms of religious interference in my personal rights, I’ve had more direct hassle from both the Free Ps and extremist Islamists.
I have simply problems with folk trying to impose their religious beliefs and principles on others
“ And, by the by, the idea that issues of conscience should be devolved in case the plebs get what they want on abortion and stem cell research is fundamental undemocratic.”
Not quite sure what you mean here.
My own opinion is that the state should provide the broadest of boundaries. If your own belief tells you something is wrong, then it’s completely up to you to follow your conscience, but you don’t have the right to make the same judgement for others.
"As I said in the post, it would be an extremely misinformed MP who wasn’t aware of the Church’s position on this and other related matters, so, why the need to hammer it home?"
What is "aware"? Do they know the detail? I am sure MPs are familar with the arguments many people bring through their door, but that doesn't mean they should be heard or might not have something unexpected to say.
"And why the concentration on RC MPs?"
Because they have in theory more reason to listen to the Church? Why do trade unions lobby Labour MPs?
Smart politics would have been to talk to all undecideds, I agree.
"It smacks too much of unacceptable intimidation of their own flock to me."
Again, they are within they right to point out their views.
"First point, obviously, yes.
But if such rules are to be applied outside the place of worship and within the “workplace”, then they should be done so consistently, ie the Church should be also targeting lawyers, accountants, teachers who may break the rules. But they don’t, it’s a selective morality game they’re playing, MPs’ Catholicism seems to be more important than those of the other groups I mentioned."
MPs are inherently more significant than the other groups, and their actions have a quicker and more demonstrable effect. I'd reckon a high profile lawyer and certainly a teacher in a Catholic school would run comparable risks, by the by.
"Also the threat to excommunicate is not as rare as it should be- they’ve threatened excommunication for parliamentarians in Mexico and also, I seem to remember, Poland and Spain."
I disagree with them doing it but as stated, they can do so. The Church is an entirely voluntary organisation. If you can't get on with important parts of the teaching, then you are probably better becoming an Anglican. They don't even require belief in God.
"That difference seems very subtle to me...and the Church has exactly the same opportunities as the rest of us for providing their arguments."
Yes. Including lobbying elected representatives.
"No, because those scientists are only presenting an argument, if you disagree with them you’re not necessarily heading for eternal damnation."
But you might be dooming people to horrible deaths from Super Bird AIDs because you won't back stem cell research. Jaundiced, there.
"Firstly, in this particular case, for Labour MPs anyway, it won’t be their own decision, there’s going to be a three-line whip which I also disagree with on votes on matters of personal conscience."
MPs can still rebel, and have do so in the past on issues they feel strongly enough on. You can't escape personal responsibility.
"Secondly,many of them ( eg Harman) have voted consistently on “Catholic” lines, there will be most definitely be a problem between what their church and what their party and possibly what their conscience tells them.The Church should not be intervening in such circumstances."
Do you know Harman's conscience? Have you any reason to know she is voting against it? The Church is within it's rights to state it's position and lobby MPs, just as any other group is. Last time, I checked, it hasn't tried to overturn democracy or called for revolution or non cooperation. It simply tries to influence the democratic process to results it prefers. Like just about every large organisation in a country. It is ultimately the responsibility of the MP.
"Lazy point.
I’m an atheist; in terms of religious interference in my personal rights, I’ve had more direct hassle from both the Free Ps and extremist Islamists.
I have simply problems with folk trying to impose their religious beliefs and principles on others"
Your atheism or otherwise is irrelevant to that being your underlying point. The irony of course, is you want to impose your beliefs and principles on others - clearly you assume supporting stem cell and abortion is natural and right.
"Not quite sure what you mean here.
My own opinion is that the state should provide the broadest of boundaries. If your own belief tells you something is wrong, then it’s completely up to you to follow your conscience, but you don’t have the right to make the same judgement for others."
This line is lazily trotted out but any amount of thought will show the flaws. Everyone largely believes this line, but the argument is over how broad that canvass is, or which rights are fundamental or how two fundamental rights interact. No easy answers and what seems broad and fundamental to you doesn't to the person beside you.
The best we can do is allow free debate and have government reflect the results of that as best we can.
The irony of course, is you want to impose your beliefs and principles on others - clearly you assume supporting stem cell and abortion is natural and right.
Personally, yes, I do, but I also believe that every person has the right to freely and independently form their own decision in these areas, so I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone.
On the subject of abortion, simply because it's available, it doesn't mean that it's also compulsory.
Re the stem-cell research question, I wouldn't disagree with what you've said here:
The best we can do is allow free debate and have government reflect the results of that as best we can.
But my fear is that organised religion, of whatever form,is not prepared to accept that in a democracy the answers to such questions are not, even in a moral sense, black and white.
"On the subject of abortion, simply because it's available, it doesn't mean that it's also compulsory. "
If you legalised murder it also wouldn't be compulsory. That is really beside the point.
"But my fear is that organised religion, of whatever form,is not prepared to accept that in a democracy the answers to such questions are not, even in a moral sense, black and white."
What you miss is that organised religions (Catholic, prod, Muslim, Jewish, other) have as much right to any democratic form of influence as any other body in society.
By seeking to silence them so your view prevail, then you attack democracy.
Perhaps this is easier coming from a Nationalist background. It doesn't matter how right your position in, how many vested interests you think have bugger all right to be involved, if you can't command a majority what you want doesn't get done.
Post a Comment