Others (more informed and eloquent than I) have already commented on the recent hoo-hah about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
(This, for example, is particularly good. As is most of the stuff here).
To be honest, I've been unable to work up much annoyance about the whole thing because a) some religious figure or other kicking up a fuss at Easter was inevitable and b) I think that MPs should be able to vote with their conscience on all issues.
What I will add, however, is that the whole thing illustrates the problem with bringing religion into political debates perfectly. The title of this post is that of an essay by Richard Rorty in 'Philosophy and Social Hope', in which he argues that bringing religion into the political sphere is to be discouraged because to say that “My God disapproves of X” is to say no more than “I dislike X”. When pushed upon the issue, the religious can only retreat to a “divine sense” that is inaccessible to the rest of us mere mortals.
It is an end to the conversation rather than a contribution to it.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Religion as a conversation stopper
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I totally agree with you
What is the nonsense spouted by Brown yesterday that MPs can have a free vote on the individual issues BUT when it comes to the vote on the Bill they have to vote with the party?
As for the religious pontificating (no pun intended) it is these same clergy that leap on the bandwagon saying that the Pharma and medical industries are not doing enough to save lives.
So let them get on with their job to research and produce life saving medicines
It’s all very well to talk about MPs voting with their conscience. But we don’t elect them to do that.
We elect them on a platform - manifesto promises apparently not actually subject to reasonable expectations, but still that influences if we vote for them or not. We generally expect them to follow their party line. Or their own previously avowed line if independent.
If Catholic MPs vote with their ‘conscience’, i.e. as their priest instructs, rather than their party leader instructs, they may or may not, be representing the views of their probably largely non-Catholic constituents.
If they followed their religious whip on contraception it would probably be illegal.
The point is going with their conscience is not necessarily more democratic and may well be argued as much less so less so. Various contradictory religious conceits practiced by MPs should not be allowed to hijack the democratic process. They should ‘step outside themselves’ and vote as their office dictates, not their consciences, or prejudices.
As you say, religion should be kept out of politics - and happily generally seems to be in the UK more often than elsewhere. The ultimate penalty for not doing so, looking at the world in general seems to be either a religious dictatorship or a bloodbath.
I agree, politics and religion need to be kept separate. This is particularly true in our day and age where so many religions make a fundamentalist comeback.
Post a Comment