Church and Science reignite age old feud

alexhilton Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Despite the Pope's recent rehabilitaton of Galileo, four hundred years after his trial for daring to suggest the Earth travels around the Sun, the Church is again making war on science, this time over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.



David Cameron, knowing he would have no chance of enforcing a whipped vote on the loon wing of the Conservative benches, is suggesting a free vote is the noble position rather than pragmatic avoidance of an embarrassing split. Gordon Brown on the other hand seems to be nuancing his position over the course of the day to ensure he is not faced with ministerial resignations from Des Browne, Paul Murphy and Ruth Kelly. Current status is that Gordon will allow a free vote on some clauses but whip the substantive motion. Lord Winston and David Aaronovitch are leading the fightback.

tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Church and Science reignite age old feud | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#1)

by RedRooster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM GMT

Des Browne and Ruth Kelly.  What a tragic loss to the front benches they would be.

Polly Toynbee has another good article about the vote here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/25/ethicsofscience.medicalresearch

 


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#2)

by archbold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM GMT

Sometimes Alex you really do talk a load of hogwash.


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#4)

by bigpapi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:24 PM GMT

Maybe he does, but not in this case.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#3)

by Sensible Comrade on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:06:31 PM GMT

Some people are sceptical of those (such as myself) who argue that organised religion can be a dangerous influence and that we need more secular reforms in this country. I really think this controversy has been a clear demonstration of how reactionary certain religious figures are and how they can potentially hold back scientific progress in this country.

The media have been too uncritical of those simplisticly claiming this research is "monstrous". Many of their arguments are based on errors - or perhaps downright lies.

The suggestion that wanting to stop this research - research which could potentially help those suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc - should be labelled a "moral" position or an act of "conscience" is baffeling and quite sick.

It is worrying how Catholic MPs must now feel pressurised to comply with the demands of their church, otherwise they cannot claim to be 'good Catholics'. I think it is ludicrous that some of these MPs were happy to support the war in Iraq but are apparently willing to resign at the thought of human-animal embryos. The Labour government does not need this sort of disloyalty right now!


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#5)

by archbold on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:02 PM GMT

Well at least you have made a "sensible" contribution unlike Alex who seems to feel that it is ok to describe people of religious conviction as "loons". Sadly it seems that Alex’s view is pretty indicative of the many within the Labour party who are frankly anti catholic! If this was any other religion, it would be condemned on this site.


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#6)

by alexhilton on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:53 AM GMT

archbold, you of all people know i a no more anti catholic  than i am anti any other religion. would you care to point out any inaccuracy on my part?

it is not dorries' catholicism that makes ther a loon, it is her campaign for the return of back-street, amateur abortionists that makes her a grade A loon.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#8)

by Prbo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:28:04 AM GMT

Alex, I understand your sentiments, but to claim that Nad is advocating a return to 'back street abortions' is a willful misrepresentation of her views.  She happens to oppose abortion in all its forms, as do I.  I can understand that people support abortion.  That doesn't make either side 'loons', it's an honest disagreement of principle.

She doesn't want to see backstreet abortion at all - no-one does.  Comments like this do nothing for the credibility of this site.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#9)

by alexhilton on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM GMT

But if she achieves her goal, back street abortions will return for working class women. Wealthy women always had access to doctors prepared to break the law.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#10)

by Prbo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM GMT

Sorry alex, but you're deliberately missing the point again.  The point is that if you believe something is morally wrong, i.e. in this case that abortion is murder, then it is wrong.  Both a complete ban on abortion and a small amount of abortions performed legally present problems.  However, if you believe that it is murder, then why should you compromise and say that it's all right? 

You're attempt to bring some good old-fashioned class war into it doesn't do your arguments any favours either.  I've been longing for signs that the Labour party's moved on from that, but when thoroughly middle-class guys such as you start banging the class war drum, it's obvious to see that Blair's influence over the last ten years has only been skin deep.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#12)

by alexhilton on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM GMT

There really isn't any need to get personal when there's plenty to discuss on the issue. I'm not sure how I could be defined as middle class, though I see no reason to be insulted.

I don't believe the state should be ruling on morality, but on a lower bar of acceptability. However, I do believe the Catholic moral basis for opposing abortion is based on long-standing hypocrisy and misogyny.

"Thou shallt not kill" is a pretty clear directive that has spawned countless caveats from the earliest days of Christianity. A similar caveat could easily be provided in the case of abortion.

Yet I believe the Catholic position on abortion to be far more honestly tied up with dysfunctional attitudes towards women and to sex. The eleventh commandment, "Thou shallt not commit buggery" has exercised the Catholic Church's energies disproportionately over centuries and continues to do so today, again supposedly rooted in the notion that sex is for the making of life.

There are too many abortions - of course there are. But ending poverty, improving education and driving opportunities at young people who feel they have none, will do far more to reduce abortion rates than running a state according to hypocritical and repressive religious doctrines.

My advice to those who oppose abortion is not to have one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#17)

by Prbo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM GMT

I'm sorry if you think they're personal comments alex, they're not intended as such.  I simply think it sad that people such as yourself seek to claim that this is a class issue when it's no such thing, as you well know.  (besides, how is it insulting to be called middle class?  That's a new one on me)

This is more than a 'Catholic' issue.  I'm not a Catholic, but I believe that abortion is murder.  It's nothing to do with attitudes towards homosexuality either.  Obviously the debate about whether abortion is murder or not is a long and convoluted one, and I doubt neither of us are going to convince each other of our respective opinions.

However, as a Christian, I believe that a simple statement from the Bible that murder is wrong applies to unborn, as well as born, people.  There's nothing hypocritical about that, and nothing misogynistic.  It's a bit difficult to be discriminatory towards women in this matter when men are incapable of having children!

Whatever your desire to criticise Catholicism, the issue of abortion transcends it.  I totally accept your right to believe that abortion is acceptable, and I would humbly ask that you would respect people's opposition to it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#18)

by alexhilton on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM GMT

I really do respect people's right to oppose abortion and I would not dream of making abortions mandatory. But the issue is absolutely one of women's emancipation and of breaking down class barriers. As I said before, safe, illegal, abortions were always available to those with money.

Though it's difficult to find good data for illegal activities, there isn't any clear evidence that there are any more abortions now than there were when it was illegal.

A lot of things we don't like are legal. You don't have to do something just because it's legal. If any of a number of ancient popes, emperors or influential theologians had decided that abortion was as useful to justify as war, torture, slavery or fascism, then we wouldn't be having this debate today.

Oh, but not one of them were women.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#7)

by hardmant on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:13:00 AM GMT

Of course, Galileo didn't get condemned for suggesting that the Earth travelled around the Sun, but rather for suggesting that the Bible supported such a view at a time when the scientific consensus agreed that this was not supported by what was considered sufficient 'evidence' at the time.

It's best to get our facts right, thats all. Otherwise, the Catholics might just laugh at your protestations


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#11)

by Radford Mann on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM GMT

The interesting point to emerge from this is the debate about firstly, what constitutes a conscience issue and secondly, how far ought parties go to accommodate the preferences of their individual MPs.

On the first point, it seems clear that conscience is being constructed largely as a product of religious belief, in this case Catholic belief. So a conscience issue becomes one that offends the sensibilities of a particular religious position. Abortion and stem cell research fall into this category. However, the religious belief offended has to be both mainstream and a powerful one. Despite the significant numbers of muslims in the country, it seems unlikely that the PM would seek to accommodate muslim MPs should any issue arise of particular concern to them. I suggest that this is because, in part, because Islam has yet to be accepted as respectable by sections of British society. In short, it has yet to become mainstream. The other reason for a conscience vote is where a party isn't too bothered about the result of the vote. Foxhunting comes into this category.

So, we have two categories of conscience vote. The larger category of religious conscience and the smaller of political indifference. What is particularly interesting is what isn't ever considered a conscience issue. A case can easily be made that a decision to go to war is a conscience issue. The conscience here can be religious - some protestant denominations are pacifist for example - or it can be a secular conscience; that either all war is wrong or that this particular proposed war is wrong. Another issue would be nuclear weapons. For many, religious or secular, to threaten to reign down destruction upon a country in this manner would offend their conscience. Yet no government would consider offering its MPs a free vote on these issues.

How far ought parties to accommodate the individual consciences of their MPs? That's a toughie. It does seem strange that the government denied a free vote on the Iraq war, a war which killed actual existing people, yet seems inclined to allow one in the case of the present embryology bill where no people will die and the results of the research may save real people. If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow a free vote on this bill and Ms. Kelly and other ministers would have to support it or resign as Robin Cook did over Iraq.


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#13)

by alexhilton on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:02:51 PM GMT

Excellent point Radford Mann


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#14)

by Kat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM GMT

there is clear a distinction in this case.  Both embryology law and abortion laws have conscience clauses written into the legislation, so that medical practitioners cannot be forced to take life against their will. It is a simple extension of this principle that has always allowed MPs a free vote on this particular type of issue. In this sense, this vote is not comparable with any other.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#19)

by TonyHannon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM GMT

Great post Radford Mann.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#15)

by grimupnorth on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM GMT

If these Ministers   resigned  that would at least  be honourable but  they  want to have it both ways. ie stay in Govt and salve their consciences.
I would  probably  vote   in favour  of this  Bill   but speaking as  a  (lapsed) Catholic I do  understand why some MPs would find  this difficult to support. So let;s not start  throwng rocks at people for their religious beliefs, eh.....


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#21)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:42:45 AM GMT

Small point: I don't understand why we shouldn't "throw rocks" at politicians because of their religious beliefs when it's ok to criticise them over their views on Iraq, taxation, public service reform, internal party democracy etc.

Why should religion be considered 'off limits'? What gives it that privilege that it should escape normal criticism?

As others have said here, senior MPs opposed to this bill should not expect special accommodation just because they can claim their religious affiliation makes it a prickly issue for them. If they are opposed to a government bill they should resign their positions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#22)

by alexhilton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:24 AM GMT

I agree, we don't respect religious views when they promote homophobia or creationism. (do we?)


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#24)

by bigpapi on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:57:15 PM GMT

I believe that we maybe don't respect religious views when they promote homophobia or creationism, but I would sincerely hope that we respected people's rights to hold such views, even if we vehemently disagree with them.  That is part of what constitutes a free society.  If we start saying people can't hold those views, we are on the road to saying you can't be a Republican unless you oppose abortion, which will lead, if McCain is elected to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade (two "liberal" Justices are unlikely to serve another four years).

It is important we respect people's views, and if we disagree with them, shout it loudly, and use the power of argument to persuade the majority to our view.

On the wider subject of the HFE Bill - why the concentration on Roman Catholic MPs in Cabinet?  It is almost certain that the two Muslim members of Government (Shahid Malik at DfID and Sadiq Khan in the Whips Office) would be in a difficult position (along with the other Muslim MPs) as Islam opposes embryonic research and abortion (I believe Mohammed Sarwar, who was the only Muslim MP at the time) voted against licensing Embryonic Stem Cell research).


[ Parent ]

Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#16)

by Radford Mann on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:55 PM GMT

Interesting comments on what is a conscience vote here in the 'God writes a lot of letters' and 'Embryos and whips' entires, and here in a 1998 article by Phil Cowley.


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#20)

by jkitleft on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:38:47 PM GMT

The ministers need to resign if they are going to vote against the bill.

It is rediculous to talk of 'pro-abortion'. 'Pro-choice' is the correct term. I understand someone's ethical grounds on an issue like abortion. I can understand people having religious beliefs. They are ideologies, and if we have political freedom, then this must be protected (although not in the cases if someone is discriminating someone, and then the bully claims 'religious persecution'). But, I condemn, in all forms, anyone who tries to subordinate others with their religion. What subordination is going on? The denial of medical advancements for hundreds, of thousands, perhaps millions of people.

It is fine to hold a personal belief, but when those in the highest ranks of office are about to vote on any issue, they must reach an objective conclusion of such an issue, and cannot wrap themselves in the subjectivity of their pre-conceptions.

NB I cannot help but note, that certain Catholics within the Labour party were not looking for advice from the Vatican, when the vote on the Iraq war was approaching.


Re: Church and Science reignite age old feud (#23)

by Curly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM GMT

There are some <a href="http://curly15.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/can-the-scientists-always-be-right/">very strange and worrying concepts</a> in this proposed legislation.
A free vote over certain clauses is not enough, Brown should allow a free vote on the third reading too!


Church and Science reignite age old feud | 24 comments (24 topical)