Forum Topic

Should the Churches get involved in politics?

Contentious I know - but having read some of the newspaper headlines and articles today just wondered what others thought?

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d42 Comments

In an article today in The Times entitled'Why won't they talk about real life?'by Andrew Neil:'The British chattering classes love to sneer at America's 'obsession' with abortion.But most folk,on either side of the Atlantic,will regard the rights of the unborn child,which until the past few weeks have been given scant attention by British politicians,as more important than the right of foxes not to be hunted with hounds,to which the British parliament has devoted hundreds of hours. A political system that gives priority to the fox rather than the foetus should not think itself superior to one that does the opposite.'

Keith Iddon ● 7327d

Speaking from experience Charles, the father does get marginalised out of the equation.There is also loads of help and support for the woman in all this,but diidley-squat for the man. No support group,no advice centre,just a generalised attitude amongst the services that you are an inconvenience who's opinion is irrelevant.This was certainly the case 15 yrs ago

Keith Iddon ● 7329d

My my don't we get ratty around here, but then I'm only a woman so what could I possibly know? I do not feel obliged to put forward "a reasoned argument" as you put it and I'm not particularly anti catholic, but I know what I believe, if you wish to disagree that is entirely your prerogative. I do believe the level of hypocrisy shown by the churches is staggering, but if you are happy with that, so be it. Of course if you ever have an unwanted pregnancy you might feel differently.

Vanessa Smith ● 7331d

Vanessa - you've put forward your views that the Catholic Church is a paedophile ridden institution responsible for millions of deaths before. It has hard to avoid the conclusion that this is just calculated offensiveness on your part rather than any attempt to debate the issue of abortion. You've put no reasoned arguments forward just a series of out-dated feminist sloganising and anti-Catholic diatribes. Your opinions on this matter seem to be based on a negative attitude to the Church rather than any considered position on the ethics of abortion.Your point about the Church dictating to politicians makes little sense as the Church can't dictate to anyone. They have a view, they have expressed it which is their right in a democratic society. The Government is ignoring them which is their right as well.

Dan Evans ● 7331d

[i]it is clearly a matter that demands careful consideration of ALL the facts, and deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction to win votes.[i/]I agree it is a problem? But one that millions of people are interested in, not only in this country but though-out the world. It needs a political solution in my opinion, then and only then can it be hauled out of the Political  Arena and left to an individuals concience.In general it takes two to procreate, yet when the crunch time arises on these monumental decisions the male partner has little or no say at all in the decision of abortion, I for one find this most unfair. 

Charles Guest ● 7332d

I have no problem at all with anyone, clergy or not, airing their views - I do have a problem with them trying to dictate to political parties on a very serious subject which primarily affects women at the time of a general election. I particularly have a problem with catholic clergy who seem unwilling to put their own house in order on child abuse and who hypocritically condone what could be looked at as murder by refusing to promote the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS, pots and kettles and glass houses spring to mind. It seems to me you cannot lecture on the sanctity of life at one stage and not at another. I think the level of debate on this thread alone is an example of just how important this issue is, it is clearly a matter that demands careful consideration of ALL the facts, and deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction to win votes.

Vanessa Smith ● 7332d

and for the umpteenth time I think that may well be reviewed in the light of medical advances.Sucking a full term babies brains out as long as a part of it(toe or foot)is still in the birth canal can hardly be considered a medical advance?I must agree with Angus on this one. Murder is the proper name for it, in-fact premeditated murder would be more accurate. As for your very first sentence you can now think of me as anti abortion, I cannot speak for Angus but I suspect he feels the same way. BTW the clergy surely are entitled to air their beliefs unless of course you wish to disenfranchise them from the God given right of free speech?

Charles Guest ● 7332d

I think that talk of "pro" or "anti" abortion is inflammatory nonsense. I can't think of anyone who is either. It really is a question of a woman's right to choose within the legislation, and for the umpteenth time I think that may well be reviewed in the light of medical advances. No-one in their right mind could or would advocate abortion on a whim, it has serious physical and emotional consequences for any woman, it is never undertaken lightly I am sure. I cannot help but reach the conclusion that the dear Cardinal O'Connor has once again opened his mouth inadvisedly by comparing abortion with Nazi practices, that sort of thing is not helpful and has been condemned by many people. Whatever people think surely decent legislation is preferable to a return to back-street abortions that cost so many lives. In America they are beginning to rue the day they let religion into politics, we should be on our guard that we don't go the same way.

Vanessa Smith ● 7333d

At one time I would have agreed with everything that Vanessa has posted,........until I found out about partial abortion!! that quickly changed my mind on this particular subject. Since then I have taken a step back and I am now willing to listen to King or Knave on the subject of partial abortion. BTW it is only very recently I learned about this barbarous practice, If there are any pro abortionists I would kindly ask them to find out about this murderous(no other word for it)practise, then give an honest opinion as to whether they are pro or anti abortion.

Angus James ● 7333d

Well said Dan.

Keith Iddon ● 7333d

'...and who wrote that letter?'...does it matter? The point being made is an  ironical one me thinks.

Keith Iddon ● 7333d

Vanessa - changing the subject and having a go at people who disagree with you suggests you can't really marshall any good arguments to defend your position on abortion.There also isn't much logic to your argument. The Pope may argue against condoms but I suspect he is also encouraging monogamy which is probably in an African context a much better guard against AIDs. Most Catholics I know think the Church's position is bonkers but also any that have any experience of aid work dismiss the 'Pope as a mass murderer' comments like the ones you quote from the Mirror. Regions in which AIDS is most prevalent are just too poor to distribute condoms in sufficient numbers to stop the spread and the aid agencies can't do much to counteract this.One Catholic friend says that if an African doesn't replace this Pope then the one after that will come from that continent as the Church is growing incredible rapidly there. Maybe you feel Africans are too stupid to recognise the evil nature of the Church but perhaps in their present predicament they see that it has something to offer them. My friend claims that because their lifestyle makes them less likely to contract AIDs, the Christian portion of the population is growing whereas overall population looks to fall dramatically as the AIDs epidemic starts to hit.I don't know if this is true but I do know that this is clearly a complex issue which like abortion deserves a bit more thought than a tabloid editorial can give it.

Dan Evans ● 7336d

Talk about taking things out of context -and who wrote that letter? I have no doubt that the legislation on abortion will be reviewed, in the light of advances in neo natal care. However, it really isn't something that should be rushed at in the emotion and heat of a general election, it is far too an important subject. But back to the original point of the churches becoming involved in politics - how about this from "The Mirror"  yesterday- "Cardinal O'Connor ordering Catholics to vote Tory and preserve life, this from someone whose Pontiff orders men not to wear condoms, knowing to do so kills millions through AIDS, and the Archbishop of Canterbury applauding him". So do these priests not care about human lives after birth - doesn't quite make for the same sort of emotive headlines does it?

Vanessa Smith ● 7336d

So, Vanessa,taking the life of a child is the left wing thing to do, is it?

Keith Iddon ● 7337d

Interesting letter in The Times today:'How can a Government which spent so many hours on the Hunting Bill say that abortion should be left to an individual's conscience?It would have been far better if hunting were left as a matter of conscience and abortion banned.      What sort of society are we becoming where our Government thinks that the life of a fox is more important than that of an unborn child?'

Keith Iddon ● 7337d

This is a very interesting thread.  Personally, I am anti-abortion, but I don't see the issue playing a big part in our General Election because, basically, the British electorate (and, in particular, the English) seem to be very pragmatic and secular.  They also don't tend to vote on single issues in General Elections (as opposed, to say, European Elections, where they might indulge in single issue voting).  In response to John Connelly's earlier points about the British constitution, it is true that we are technically not a secular country in that the Queen is Head of the Church of England, and Bishops sit in the Lords. However, Britain certainly seems to be secular in attitude, if not in fact.  If ever the religious institutions in the country were perceived to be too much involved in the body politic, then I suspect that their theoretical attachment to the constitution would not last very long.  I also suspect that if, for example, abortion is ever going to be stopped/dramatically reduced, then it will have to be for practical and non-religious reasons - such as a worry regarding a decline in the general birthrate.As for the contention that a Roman Catholic cannot become Prime Minister - I am not sure that this is the case.  It is certainly the case that the Act of Settlement bars the monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, but as the position of Prime Minister does not technically exist, then logically it does seem a little odd to say that an RC can't become PM.  The term 'Prime Minister', as we all know, initially developed as a slang term, and was somewhat derogatory.  The 'Prime Minister' was the Member of Parliament selected by the Monarch to represent his/her views in the House of Commons.  The tradition developed so that the Monarch happened to chose the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to be his/her First Minister.  Therefore, unless the Act of Settlement (or any other piece of legislation) says that the First Lord of the Treasury (which is the portfolio that all PMs carry) cannot be an RC, then what is to stop the Monarch from chosing one?Any other constitutional opinions out there??

Samantha Davies ● 7337d

Dan- I think that it a very considered reply however I cannot agree that I "resort to tactics to try and discredit people", I was merely pointing out that it is a bit rich for so-called Christian right wingers to persecute people employed in clinics and who are doing nothing illegal and then try and claim the moral high ground. As I believe it is for the representatives of the Catholic church, given the criminal behaviour of some priests and their elaborate attempts at covering it up for many years. I do however take heart from a small piece in today's paper, and I quote: "Labour should host screenings of Mike Leigh's excellent film Vera Drake in every constituency to remind us of the horrors of backstreet abortion. The Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminter should, like cops, shut up and keep out of politics. Who elected them anyway?"

Vanessa Smith ● 7338d

The survey mentioned was referred to earlier in the thread as being in the Observer. I read the same results but it wasn't in the Observer which I don't get - probably it was the Guardian. Now I suppose from some perspectives these are right wing papers but generally speaking they are not seen as such.As a man (though not very religious) I'm not sure whether I am allowed to have or express an opinion on this matter so I'll keep my own views to myself. However my sister-in-law has direct experience of this having assisted in abortions, so her views may be relevant. She is obviously broadly in favour of abortions but said that for everyone involved - health workers included late term abortions were the most distressing thing she had ever experienced. She said that being involved in the termination of a foetus at this stage was worse than being caring for a sick child that died because at least she could console herself that in the latter case she was at least trying to save a life. She is utterly scornful of the concept of a woman's right to choose. She said that this is fine for middle class career women but in other cases she was aware that the woman involved wanted to keep the child but was being pressured into an abortion by a partner or her family. Many abortions were late term because the mother sought to hide the pregnancy hoping that it would be too advanced to terminate before her partner found out. In other cases the abortion was required because the partner had said that he would leave the girl if a baby was born. More often than not abortion was the man's right to choose.Like most people I can't accept the Catholic view point that life is sacred from the moment of conception but there clearly is a line between abortion and killing that occurs at some point in the pregnancy. As a man I can't have a view on when this might be according to Vanessa but I've never met any woman who shares her belief that the unborn child has absolutely no rights until it emerges into the open air. It is interesting to see her resorting to the same tactics as she did in a debate on the Jerry Stringer opera, namely to try and discredit people who oppose her by trying to associate them with extreme groups. This is exactly the same tactic as used to be used against people in unions or who campaigned for social justice or nuclear disarmament - they were immediately branded 'commies' or 'trots'.Michael Howard may be being opportunist about this issue but he is an astute politician. He knows what the opinion polls say and he knows that issues like this are potential vote winners with not just the Catholic community but other groups like Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who have tended to be Labour voting but socially Conservative. He knows he is never going to win votes from middle class women who view this as a feminist issue but luckily for him their influence on the Labour party policy making process is huge compared to the small number of votes they can deliver.

Dan Evans ● 7339d

Where are these surveys - not in the right leaning media by any chance? Funny how these surveys never include anyone you actually know isn't it? There is not a woman breathing who wouldn't agonise over having to take such a decision, and I stand by my opinion that (especially) men of any religion should butt out and refrain from upping the political stakes and keep their mouths shut. This is a matter that must have careful consideration over time, not to do that would be selling the women in this country very short. When I read of so-called right wing Christian groups threatening to picket clinics and threatening staff then I hardly think those lunatics are in a position to take the moral high ground. This is the 21st century and women have fought hard for what they have achieved I don't think they will surrender their rights so easily, especially those they have over their own bodies.

Vanessa Smith ● 7339d

What exactly have I exaggerated? By advocating that a 'a woman's right to choose' always supercedes the right to life of an unborn child you are advocating a much more extreme abortion regime than currently exists.The 'right to choose' is a palatable way of saying the right to have an abortion. Nobody is fooled by this New Labour rebranding of the issue. Both women and men have the right to choose who to vote for in an election depending on their own perception of what issues are important. Current surveys suggest that women in particular feel strongly enough about this issue to vote against the Government.

Justin Harris ● 7339d

I think that is rather exaggerating the situation to say the least. Clearly medical science has moved on and all procedures need to be reviewed in the light of progress - but that is somewhat different to the point of this - which is that this is far too an important subject to be decided, by largely men, in the heat of a general election campaign. I do not believe that there is a woman alive who doesn't go through hell when faced with this terrible dilemma, this is a decision that no woman could ever take lightly, and for the record I am not - not have I ever been "an advocate of abortion". I am though in favour of the right to choose. I do not think it is for any of us to judge women faced with such a choice.

Vanessa Smith ● 7339d

Yes that is plain - I'm astonished that any one could believe that it should be legally or morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy right up to the moment of birth. I don't think you will find even the most aggressive advocates of abortion agree with you there.

Justin Harris ● 7339d

Everytime - plain enough for you?

Vanessa Smith ● 7339d

Since when has abortion been a 'far right' issue in this country? A reduction in the upper limit has cross party support. The Observer published a poll recently showing 51% of women supporting the reduction. This isn't a "knee jerk" reaction - lots of people have serious misgivings about current policy and have done for some time. People are becoming better informed due to technology and changing their view - most notably Lord Steel who sponsored the original legislation and is now advocating a more restrictive policy than a 20 week limit.You have been asked this question before and declined to answer it - at what point exactly do you think 'a woman's right to choose' supercedes the unborn child's right to life?

Justin Harris ● 7339d

Today's "Mirror" talks of a "dangerous fusing of politics, morals and religion" specifically referring to the issue of George Dubya interfering in the case of Terry Schiavo. The article also raises the point that this is where we could be heading with upping the stakes on the abortion debate amid other issues beloved of the far right. The law regarding abortion is far too an imporant matter to be tossed around in the heat of a general election campaign, it needs measured and calm consideration with medical advice and far reaching consultation with family planning and women's organisations. Any knee jerk reactions just to score points religious or political, must not be allowed to interfere with a woman's right to choose.

Vanessa Smith ● 7339d

"There's a vast difference between lobbying and dictating to an elected Prime Minister. "Well no one would dispute that but the Cardinal is not in a position to dictate to the Prime Minister. It would appear that on the contrary it is the Prime Minister who is trying to dictate to the electorate what issues they are allowed to take into account when they cast their vote. Now that Charles Kennedy has changed his position also he is looking isolated.Mr. Blair will be conscious of the irony that John Kerry, a practising Catholic, probably lost the election due to his abortion policy. Given that he himself is, to all intents and purposes a practising Catholic as well, it would be doubly ironic if the same thing happened to him. It is easy to understand why he doesn't want the issue to be part of the election debate.

Justin Harris ● 7344d

Politics/Religion etc! Oil and water eh?

Gareth Evans ● 7345d

Agreed - but the point I was incensed about is that someone, who I would not consider has any experience in this matter, has the blasted cheek to start dictating about what he wants on the political agenda. Lobby by all means if you feel strongly about any issue, but when I read that the Prime Minister is "slapped down" by some mealy-mouthed cleric who would do better dealing with his own outfits' considerable problems I really do see red.

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d

Oh dear!Politics/Religion etc!

Kevin Farnan ● 7345d

There's a vast difference between lobbying and dictating to an elected Prime Minister.

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d

Presumably if people don't like the Churches lobbying on abortion they must also object to them lobbying on the issue of Third World debt or homelessness.

Justin Harris ● 7345d

My personal feeling is that the sooner that the unselected religious members are out of the Lords, the better.

Gareth Evans ● 7345d

I don’t buy into religion; it hardly features in my life. However, if others have a religious perspective and want to live their lives through their religious beliefs, all well and good for them. At the end of the day we should all be able to live our lives free of persecution and free of interference. I’m happy with living my life the way that I do providing that others religious beliefs don’t interfere with the way that I chose to live my life.

Gareth Evans ● 7345d

No, no and no again.

Gareth Evans ● 7345d

The problem here Vanessa is that abortion, whatever your view on the subject, is one which concerns both the Church and the State.  The Church will quite naturally have strong views on an issue so fundamental to human life, yet it is the State (ie the politicians) which has to take the decision as to whether to tighten up the law, liberalise it or leave it as it is.  I too would be uneasy with the Church trying to tell its members how they should vote, but it is not entirely unreasonable for a Christian (or indeed a person of any faith) to take a candidate's or a party's views on an issue such as abortion into account when considering how to vote.

Phil Andrews ● 7345d

John - I agree with you - I have no problem with Catholics getting equality under the constitution, although that would enable them to marry into the Royal Family, not sure that's much of a benefit! Perhaps it is way past time we separated Church and State? I don't think ANY religious leader should be telling an elected member of the Government what issues they should or should not be fighting a general election on.

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d

It is a shame that you are unwilling to debate this matter in a grown up manner without resorting to wild insults. Firstly, men are wholly entitled to have a view on abortion as it is an issue of when you consider life to begin. When exactly do you think a conceived being becomes a life worth saving? At what point does a child in the womb become more worth saving than a fox which many in the Labour party worked so hard to protect through legislation?Secondly just because you elected one kind of Government (which incidentally I did too) does not give you the right to suppress views that do not correspond with yours.Thirdly, your comment on paedophile priests does reveal you to be quite an appalling bigot. The Church did have a huge problem with this historically but it was no different from this than a lot of institutions that worked with children. The teaching profession and social care all had numerous cases over the same period. The Cardinal has 'put his house in order' as you say with the Church having the most stringent child protection policies. I'm unaware of any new cases emerging since these policies have been in place over the last few years.Rather than resorting to shrill abuse perhaps you could recognise that a democratic society allows the electorate to have a range of views on any number of issues and cast their vote in a way that they think will most effectively influence the way we are governed.

Andy Jones ● 7345d

Vanessa,I think your anger at the Catholic church's intervention in the abortion debate prompted you to pose the wrong question.Firstly, we do not live in a secular democracy. The Queen is Head of State and head of the Anglican Church. The Church has bishops who sit as of right in the House of Lords.Catholics are discrimated against in the constititution, being barred from several offices of state and marrying the monarch or successor to the throne. Indeed, leaving aside what her personal views might be on abortion, Cherie Blair, unlike her hubby, is, I think, banned from being Prime Minister because of her religion.

John Connelly ● 7345d

To be quite frank - I don't care what the Cardinal or any other religious leader says. I resent men who are supposed to be celibate interfering in something that they can know little about. We have always been very lucky in this country with our adult and practical legislation on this subject, I have no problem about this legislation being reviewed in the light of medical knowledge, however, I still don't think this is a subject that should influence the outcome of a general election., I would hate to see some of the horrific right-wing anti abortion antics in the U.S.replicated here. I elected a secular Government not a church/religion of any denomination or belief, and having read about the appalling record of cover-ups in America of paedophile priests, it really seems to me that before the good Cardinal shouts his mouth off he should be putting in some effort nearer home.

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d

Firstly perhaps you should read what the Cardinal said rather than jumping to prejudiced conclusions. What has actually happened is that in the context of a detailed analysis of the political situation which lavishly praised the Government for its work in third world debt relief for instance, it was noted that Michael Howard had come out in favour of reducing the upper limit for an abortion to 20 weeks.Since when have emotive and personal issues not been within the field of politics? It seems quite legitimate for this to be raised as it is a very important question and lots of people - not just Catholics - are concerned about the current legislation on abortion.Obviously Tony Blair and the Labour party would prefer the Cardinal not to have mentioned this as Catholics have tended historically to vote for them. As they still predominantly live in working-class urban areas they are likely to be an important factor in a lot of key constituencies. My impression is that Tony Blair retains a lot of support here despite New Labour in general being increasingly remote from its roots.

Andy Jones ● 7345d

So glad you said that, I was pretty alarmed at one article this morning that said that "Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor had slapped Tony Blair down for refusing to make abortion an election issue". I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right in this, abortion is a very emotive and personal issue, anyway who elected this Cardinal? Seems to me it is more a question of putting one's own house in order first.

Vanessa Smith ● 7345d

Vanessa,Absolutely not!  At my school back in the 1940s, the ethos was both R.C. and Conservative. When I left and started work at Cadby hall, I was again back into a 'Conservative' environment - Chocolate Sales Department vehicles were all used to ferry voters to the polling stations on General Election days, and the cars bore Tory banners and colours.Please, don't let us have any contradictory screams from the present day J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. Board (if such still exists).All dissension throughout the world, throughout time, has originated in 'churches' telling people what to think and what to do.

Ann S. Allridge ● 7345d