That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
The Pope’s visit to the UK next year will probably please some and disgruntle many. Pro-choicers will no doubt grasp their placards, proclaiming a woman’s right to choose when she has a child, and glare menacingly into the eyes of the pro-lifers opposite, similarly grasping placards praising the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion.
It will be a time for renewed anger about the Vatican’s failure to intervene in the AIDS pandemic, and one to host more debates on daytime TV about abortion, sex before marriage and whether homosexuality really is evil.
Excellent. Debate about these issues is always fun, if only to see a pro-lifer forced to say that it is right to make a raped child go through with a pregnancy. And at a time when euthanasia is under discussion again, this is perhaps a fitting opportunity to see whether our country is as secular as non-Catholics make it out to be, or if we are still held in the mediaeval clutches of churchmen long dead and, possibly, in some form of afterlife. Or possibly not.
Luckily for the 200,000 or so women who have an abortion every year in Britain, they can do so with the help of a trained medical professional. There is nothing that fills me with a sickening sense of evil as much as when a religious person preaches on the ‘sin’ of abortion or, as they like to call it, ‘infanticide’. Women on Waves (a boat that waits in International Waters to safely perform abortions for women in countries where it is illegal) state that 20 million of the 42 million abortions performed every year are illegal. This does not just mean that they are paid for with no money to the tax-man. Millions of women die every year from dangerous abortions: many performed by forcing sharp objects into the womb, or by drinking a mixture of herbs that can be fatal to the woman. I shudder inside when someone suggests that this is better than a legal, safe abortion. Thank the sinfulness of Britain that this is not the case for us.
The secular politics of Britain are now coming to light in the discussions on euthanasia. Whereas before assisted suicide was illegal because of the wilful destruction of the sacred temple of the body, reasons against euthanasia now rest on the untrustworthiness of family members and medical professionals. Good news! It’s not the whole ‘sin’ kerfuffle that stops ill people choosing when they die; it’s that their grandkids will give them a push to inherit a deposit for their homes, and because doctors get fed up of not having enough beds to cure young people! That’s such a relief. It is, however, better than the more outdated notion that helping someone to end their life will result in eternal damnation for all involved, and should, therefore, be illegal.
However, we do still have blinding remnants of an ancient, pious past; a time when drinking the blood from menstruation could cure many ills, and rabbit’s liver made you pregnant. We still cling to the ancient notion that a marriage certificate has the magical power to increase a couple’s stability and parenting abilities, and that STIs and unwanted pregnancies cannot exist within marriage. The very law against bigamy is the offspring of, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Far from being a romantic expression of a couple’s love for one another, marriage is still an opportunity to get more tax benefits for children as a reward for ‘being good’, and is still seen as being the best environment for the raising of children. Apparently, children sense their parent’s wedding certificate lurking in the background, and as a result, don’t kick the neighbour’s cat. It just seems bizarre that we live in a country that appears to base its laws on science and rationality, and still be told that the religious doctrine of ‘marriage’ should be brought into politics in any way.
We are also yet to have a Prime Minister who is not a member of the Church of England. Nick Clegg caused a little flutter when he replied “no” to the question, “Do you believe in God?”. He then declared to have “enormous respect” for people with religious faith, and claimed that his wife and he are raising their children to be Catholic. Religion seems to be important enough in politics for leaders to tread very carefully around the issue of their personal faith. The traditional answer seems to be “it’s a personal thing”. However, Tony Blair was never shy to speak about his faith, and many politicians (including John Burton, the former PM's political associate) suggested that Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq was based on his religious concept of a “crusade” of good triumphing over evil.
The problem with a religious leader bringing faith into their decisions is that it is not necessarily the faith of the voters. If a religious leader was democratically voted in, who expressed fanatically religious doctrines, and openly stated that the sins of abortion and homosexuality would be illegalised for the souls of the people, the atheists and liberals of Britain would have to bear the consequences. The worry is that a closet fanatic will be voted in, and then adapt the laws of Britain to fit in with their lifestyle choice. Hopefully though we won’t end up with a party full of them, and the leader will be allowed to prattle on in the corner whilst the others do more along the lines of what the country actually wants.
The difficulty of bringing religion into politics is that when we live in a nation of the religious and atheist, one person’s faith cannot be allowed to impact on the millions. If someone is voted in who expressed extreme beliefs before, tough luck, I’ll just move to Sweden. If they seemed to want to keep their religious belief out of politics before they were elected, because it’s ‘private’, they can bloody do so afterwards. The Pope’s visit, and the corresponding reminder of just how nasty the Catholic Church can be, is a pleasant reminder of how lucky I feel to live in a country in which, although I may disagree with many things the government do, they will not justify it by quoting the Bible. Quite frankly, it’s always a little annoying when people do that.
Indeed @20 you're right - you also realise that no Pope could ever be supported by the majority of the Catholic church if he started saying "it's ok to have sex before marriage--just use condoms" - I know this soudns like a silly point in the midst of a horrible disease that is killing millions of people, but it is the truth.
I missed a decent theological discussion? Gutted...
Read the article. It's obviously opinion and it seems silly to fault it for that. The Catholic Church's unusual - and it is most definitely the minority - belief that contraception is evil has indeed led to problems. It is better for reducing AIDS to distribute condoms and say "by the way, you could still get AIDS so be careful" than not bothering to distribute them at all. And obviously a monogomous and long-lasting is less likely to get AIDS so I'm not criticising most of the work that the Catholic Church has done but rather that one strange idea...
But yes, religion should be kept separate. As long as religious rights are enshrined by law then that should enable people to do well and protest against things they disagree with. Even though I'm a Christian, and am happy to argue to death about anything theological, I still think that a utilitarian attitude should be taken with politics as a whole. Morality is necessary but religion is not.
I can really see the appeal, as because condoms are part of the answer at least part of the answer is better than nothing? But take the following scenario. A couple are together but are refraining from sex as one partner is HIV positive. Condoms arrive in the village and the couple have sex using a condom, assuming they know how to effectively use it - but they don't and AIDS spreads. That's not a consequence the Catholic church should ever agree to or accept, so I think they're right that both condoms and proper education on how to use them and how to prevent the spread of diseases is completley necessary.
#23, No doubt a case like that is perfectly possible, and perhaps inevitable if the Catholic Church did agree to distribute contraceptives. However, from a utilitarian perspective would it not be better to distribute them anyway? By not doing so AIDs will spread in many more cases where it could have been prevented. Yes, it might lead to some unfortunate consequences due to a lack of education, but I don't see how these would undermine the effort. But, as you admit, to distribute condoms with the appropriate education would be the best course of action, and you say that the 'Catholic Church' is right to take this view, so surely they should carry it out, or at least endorse it?
I enjoyed the article and agree with #22 that politics should maintain a secular stance.
#23 - That's like saying you shouldn't give out condoms because someone might choke on them and die.
I was insulting you and your views in an earlier post - which, frankly, is the only attention they deserve - but sadly, it got deleted. Hope you'll realise one day that you and your church are killing people, and dumbing them down while you're at it.
#25, put simply, no it isn't. It's saying that both distribution and education is the course of action to take- not just one of the above. That's what I think should be happening wherever feasible. In this case i'd argue that churches working with charities should work with local and national governments to provide this safely and efficiently where it's needed. To keep churches out of politics in this issue is, quite frankly, killing people. This would make holding the view that religion should be kept out of politics a very difficult one to hold.
comment deleted by a moderator Keeping Churches out of politics allows you to make decisions that may alienate certain sections of society, but will hopefully allow a utilitarian principle to take hold of all decisions and lead to a promotion of happiness that specific religions do not allow due to adherence to traditions that contribute to problems that the world has faced for a number of years. Apologies for the long sentence!
Mass delusion. The opiate of the people. Believe what you may, but keep your irrational insanity away from politics.
#27, it isn't what you said at all. I completely agree that distribution and education are necessary, hand in hand, but the Catholic church isn't saying that. It's saying that condoms are a sin and therefore condemning millions to death - or at least it would if it ran the planet... To keep the church out of politics may kill a couple of people who use the wrong size condoms or are uneducated but it would save hundreds of thousands who don't use them. And #25 has a point. If people used condoms for oral sex in the third world to prevent AIDS, which would be sensible, but because of a total lack of knowledge ended up choking to death on the condom, the people would die as a result - and it would be an argument that people shouldn't give out condoms because it could result in that.
But this is the problem; different religions have different moral codes. In many ancient religions, human or animal sacrifice are obligatory - but most people would suggest that both are inhumane. The law should be against it and in favour of supporting human and animal lives, whilst respecting that people may believe that they need to. Politics must be secular, even if politicians are openly religious. Generally, many might see religious people as more moral and therefore more suitable leaders - even if the religious attitude conflicts with the political environment and law...
Whereas #29 is just being insulting without cause. We need less of that in the modern world, thanks.
"Blinding remnants of an ancient, pious past"...objectivity itself. Forgive me but, as the heir of St. Peter, and supreme divine representative on earth, isn't it really expected of the Pope to offer comment on any and all issues? Not that, in a secular, polyglot and religiously diverse mien, such comments should be translated into law, but, why should all states adhere to this politica model?
"Forgive me but, as the heir of St. Peter, and supreme divine representative on earth, isn't it really expected of the Pope to offer comment on any and all issues?"
Forgive me but, as a human being and an extremely conservative ex-Nazi, his comment will reflect nothing more than his own prejudices.
Then again, if condemning innocent people to death is what your god is all about, maybe Ratzinger is worth the title 'supreme divine representative on earth'.
No offense meant but when did St. Peter even consider himself the "supreme divine representative on earth" let alone some random people in the future that allege to be his heirs? I just can't find any indication in the past that the Pope is close to divine. He's a siiner; we're sinners; God has to forgive him as much as us. Christ was the representative and he's now our intercessor so what's the pope for?
#33 - Divine representative. Representative being the key word. Not divine; represents the divine i.e. God and Christ, on Earth. Guess you didn't catch the news. Jesus died.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report