House of Commons

[Shaker]

Shakes, if what you, ippy and others here are so keen to tell us really is the case, I suspect that Welby's comments had little or no influence on the large majority who voted against the bill.

This is the same head of the established state church with media coverage of his every utterance, is it?

[Hope]

Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.

And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.

[Shaker]

Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.

And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.

Not in this case, no, absolutely not.

[Hope]

This is the same head of the established state church with media coverage of his every utterance, is it?

Thankfully, we get to hear only a small number of his utterances, Shakes.  After all, we don't get to hear his every sermon, do we?  We probably get to hear more of Mr Corbyn's utterances than the ABofC's. 

[Shaker]

Thankfully, we get to hear only a small number of his utterances, Shakes.  After all, we don't get to hear his every sermon, do we?

Thankfully not.

We probably get to hear more of Mr Corbyn's utterances than the ABofC's.

Highly unlikely, but how nice if that were true.

[Hope]

Not in this case, no, absolutely not.

Why not?  Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?

[Shaker]

Why not? Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?

Yes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.

And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.

Sure it can.

But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.

So to give an example - the Tory party have always been, well conservative, particularly on social issues. That's the point. So if you are a Tory leader the expectation is that you aren't going to go out of your way to promote liberal social ideas. It would take personal moral courage to stare down your own party's ideological orthodoxy and argue for liberal social reform. So (for all his faults in other respects) Cameron showed considerable moral courage and leadership in facing down the orthodox view in his party and arguing for equal marriage.

For someone leading the liberal party to do so would be far less unexpected so would really be just going with the flow.

So for the religious leaders a level of personal moral courage and leadership would involve using their leadership position to argue against the orthodox religious view, not to simply fold in behind it.

[Hope]

Highly unlikely, but how nice if that were true.

OK, Corbyn was a bit of a stretch, though it could well true - we wait with bated breathe.  Regardless of whether he wins the election or not, it'll simply add another voice of partiality to debates.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not in this case, no, absolutely not.

Why not?  Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?

No because we aren't talking about religious leaders, so the MPs aren't so overtly aligned with a particular manner of thinking based on allegiance to a political party.

You might argue (but even then I'm not sure it works) that tories are institutionally against this and labour in favour so for an MP to go against the grain of that 'party' orthodoxy might be considered as demonstrating moral courage.

But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.

[Hope]

But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.

I would disagree.  That orthodoxy might be the only voice speaking against the argumentum ad populum.  To stick to that orthodoxy in the face of abuse and ridicule can require considerable personal moral courage.

So for the religious leaders a level of personal moral courage and leadership would involve using their leadership position to argue against the orthodox religious view, not to simply fold in behind it.

Don't worry, plenty have, and do.  For instance, we wouldn't have remarriage of divorcees in church if it hadn't happened.  However, speaking out against the orthodoxy isn't necessarily speaking out for truth. 

I have noticed that when the ABofC and other church leaders speak out against things like Wonga and invasions of other nations, there is a fairly muted response, but when there is a comment about something that is supported by a minority (on the assumption that the rest of society will roll over) there is a massive outcry.

[Outrider]

I have noticed that when the ABofC and other church leaders speak out against things like Wonga and invasions of other nations, there is a fairly muted response, but when there is a comment about something that is supported by a minority (on the assumption that the rest of society will roll over) there is a massive outcry.

When people had a muted response to Welby's pronouncements on Wonga it was because of the hypocrisy of someone who runs a massive financial group with tax exemptions and questionable investments criticising someone else's financial dealings.

As to this issue, Welby isn't commenting on something that's supported by a public minority - the majority of the public are in favour of assisted dying.

O.

[Hope]

But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.

Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it.  Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.

I would disagree.  That orthodoxy might be the only voice speaking against the argumentum ad populum.  To stick to that orthodoxy in the face of abuse and ridicule can require considerable personal moral courage.

Sure it could be - but it isn't in this case. We have had religious leaders on mass trotting out the 'party line'. Whether that is because they all believe it or because they are afraid to voice doubt on the issue (which would of course require personal moral courage).

Try it this way - did it take a level of personal moral courage (I use the word moral advisedly) for Blair in his clause 4 moment - i.e. speaking against the orthodox view of default to state ownership - sure it did because he was going against the orthodox view in his 'tribe'. Would that be the same for John Major (at the same time) of course not as speaking out against public ownership was the default position in his tribe.

If the ABoC speaks out against assisted dying he is merely repeating the orthodox view of his tribe - that requires very little moral courage.

[Shaker]

If the ABoC speaks out against assisted dying he is merely repeating the orthodox view of his tribe - that requires very little moral courage.

Moral courage would be to do what George Carey has done with regard to this debate ... apart from the fact that it takes not very much moral courage to state your views years after stepping down from the office as compared to doing it while you're still in the bloody job.

[Outrider]

But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.

Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it.  Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point.

Having the same precept doesn't even equate to the same reasoning, but as it is it doesn't seem as if they have the same precept - one of them sees life as a quality that someone has, the other sees life as something someone does.

If life is something one has, the value is maintained by keeping that life with the person, regardless of the person. If life is something one does, the value is a subjective one of how well that person is realising that life.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.

Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it.  Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point.

Of course there are some religious leaders (or ex leaders who have argued for assisted dying) - Carey being perhaps the most obvious.

Try it this way - there is a bit in the first (I think) Harry Potter book where Neville Longbottom tries to prevent Potter et al from doing something (he gets zapped by Hermione). Anyhow at the very end of the book Dumbledore make the following point - to stand up against your enemies takes courage, but to stand up to your friends takes more courage. That's the point - for a religious leader to argue against assisted dying he or she is standing up against the perceived 'enemies' of that religion - to argue in favour requires a greater level of moral courage - to stand up to your friends.

[Hope]

When people had a muted response to Welby's pronouncements on Wonga it was because of the hypocrisy of someone who runs a massive financial group with tax exemptions and questionable investments criticising someone else's financial dealings.

So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq?  Regarding 'questionable investments' isn't British society possibly even more guilty of this, relying heavily on such investments for the well-being of pension funds?  Investments that, over the last 20-odd years, perhaps longer, CoE Commissioners have worked hard to remove from their portfolio.

As to this issue, Welby isn't commenting on something that's supported by a public minority - the majority of the public are in favour of assisted dying.

But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed.

Evidence please.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq?

From memory millions of people stood up against the invasion of Iraq - including an estimated 1-2 million on a single march in London.

Sure they might not have been pouring over every word from Rowan Williams, but that would be because he wasn't at the forefront of the campaign, rather than them not agreeing with him.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Forum,

Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.

I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.

Gonnagle.

-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens  in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.

What an appallingly small minded, narrowly parochial, petty nationalist you are. Shame on you.

And also totally wrong.

One of the major factors that is driving the current debate in westminster is the law in Switzerland. In your narrow mindedness what happens in Zurich has no effect on the UK - but it does, and the same would be the case if assisted dying were legalised in England.

Were that to happen then there would be a steady stream of Scots heading south of the border because of differences in the law. And that will massively affect the debate in Scotland and the drive to change the law north of the border.

Take the blinkers off and you might just see that there is a bigger world outside.

Applause.

[Outrider]

So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq?

I don't need excuses, I was giving explanations - personally I was against the invasion of Iraq, as were many of the sources I was reading at the time, so in the main I saw agreement with him in the media. As to why it may have been muted - they probably (justifiably) wondered what relevance a Christian religious spokesman might have to a debate about an oil-inspired invasion of Muslim regions by a Western military-industrial complex.

Regarding 'questionable investments' isn't British society possibly even more guilty of this, relying heavily on such investments for the well-being of pension funds?  Investments that, over the last 20-odd years, perhaps longer, CoE Commissioners have worked hard to remove from their portfolio.

Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.

But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed.

Assuming that figure's correct (I've not seen anything to support it, but it's entirely plausible) why isn't Parliament asking a body to review the methodology rather than having a blanket vote on kicking it into touch? Why isn't Welby asking people to tighten the controls or rethink the qualification criteria? He's doing so because he's not a public representative, he's not there to represent the populace, he's there to represent the orthodoxy, just as he was when he prevaricated over gay priests and underwhelmed on support for female bishops.

O.

[Rhiannon]

This is worth a look.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/support-us/religious-support/

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

As was discussed in the house, 80% of the population are in favour but it dropped to 47% when method was discussed.

I do think personally that it was sad it did not reach a second reading, everyone in the house thanked the gentleman who brought the bill before the house, it needs to be discussed, not just by the house but by everyone.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

That's the point - for a religious leader to argue against assisted dying he or she is standing up against the perceived 'enemies' of that religion - to argue in favour requires a greater level of moral courage - to stand up to your friends.

But there is no Christian 'standpoint' or 'position' on assisted dying, PD.  Even the CofE's position is based primarily on what might be deemed secular reasoning.  As such there are no perceived 'enemies' of the religion on this issue; just very different attitudes to the protection of the vulnerable - both often held by members of the faith and both often argued for by said members.