Something Rotten In Blighty

[shinytoaster]

I am very, very alarmed to see the Catholic Church in this country calling for religion to return to the centre of British politics, for debates to be opened up on abortion, for, in Cardinal O'Connor's words, us to become more like the US in religious outlook and presence.

I believe this must not be allowed to happen.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor and his followers are dangerous, desperate men who would seek to banish centuries of humanist progress to the dustbin. He sees the decline of religion in this country and he seeks to keep the status quo intact - heaven forbid people should be allowed to think for themselves. He must be stopped. Do you want to go back to back-street abortions?

I think many people in this country regard Britain as removed and aloof from the religious revival in American politics. The reality is a lot different. I suspect many of you will think I am a reactionary fool, many of you don't think this could happen here? Maybe not. But are you willing to take that chance? Britain is not a secular paradise by any means. Already laws are going through that will seek to curtail our right to criticise religion. What we have could change. What the Americans had is changing now. Don't let it happen here. Already the BBC has been picketed by fundamentalist Christians. Already, intolerant elements of the Sikh community have caused legitimate theatre to be cancelled and freedom of speech to be curtailed as a result. Is it happening? It may already be.

It would be a great shame to see religious issues coming to the fore in the next election, but it is now my fear - reasonable I think - that this could happen. It is therefore vital that secularists and liberal Christians must mobilise now, ahead of time, to wipe out the fundamentalist vote in the UK. Because after they've taken back abortion, they will try and take back gay partnership rights as well, and these are things I am not prepared to sacrifice.

There is going to be an election this year, and I want you to please vote for secular candidates in May. If religious issues do become election issues, it is your duty to find out your parliamentary candidate's views and vote accordingly. I think we can keep the fundamentalists down if we start working now. Don't let this malign influence into British politics. Organised religion has no place in government.

We have freedom of religion in this country, and this should reasonably translate to freedom from religion, as well.

Comments

[pinguthegreek.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do so agree with you, dear ! Keep politics and religion separate !

I admire your passion in what you've said !

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Speaking as an atheist and a pro-choicer, of course that's my own personal outlook, but I feel you're being too dismissive to those who oppose abortion. It's a murky issue and a campaign to ban it is hardly akin to the Spanish Inquisition.

[katiemorris.livejournal.com]

Yes, I admire your passion too, but Alex, surely surely Religion will never gain the power over here that it has in parts of the States. I can't believe we will go the same way.

Now maybe I'm just living up to what you said in your post about complacency in Britain paving the way for this kind of change. But I really do not believe that the abortion law will be repealed, not after all this time.

Look, if you have any links, or any reading you can point me to, I would be really grateful as I know you are an intelligent independent thinker and not a scaremonger (that's usually me!).

Honey, have you thought of running for parliament yourself? You'd have my vote like a shot.

[laitaine]

We have freedom of religion in this country, and this should reasonably translate to freedom from religion, as well.

Yes. Just.... yes. Beautifully put.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

You'll be wanting to consider joining the National Secular Society, then. I'm not a member, but I've certainly considered joining in the past and am still keen to do so. (Look at their list of Honorary Associates on the "join" page; it's pretty fierce. Also, the page has a pic of cuddly Claire Rayner! How could you resist?) Their most recent Press Release is on very similar lines to this.

[gokudera]

Just a random comment from an equally random lurker, but I just wanted to applaud (and agree with, obviously) what I felt was an extremely driven post.

Although I'm not british, I can sympathise where you're coming from in regards to the concern over the sudden insurgence of religion-based politics creeping into a social circle where it should so obviously not belong. During our last election, one of the main contenders for parliamentary leadership was not only anti-abortion and pro-Iraq war, but openly against pro-gay legislation, such as the current move to legalise gay marriages (he even went so far as to suggest stripping gay couples of some of the rights of commonlaw unions, the peach). Needless to say, since I haven't slit my wrists in a fit of post-electoral agony, he wasn't elected--but not by much, unfortunately.

Now that gay marriage is being pushed as a serious issue by canada's courts, every major religion in the world is looking down on us with scorn, putting so much pressure on the government and the people to reject the proposition--but, at least half of the time, the people (even those in charge, Whoever bless the PM's heart) are rejecting this pressure. I think this has, at least in part, something to do with the media? Sure it's a circus, but the predominantly liberal voices of the press have been subtly drumming up a lot of support for the cause. I know britain's fortunate enough to have a mixed public/private media system so if the message could be (or is already being?) pushed by the tabloids and dailies it might do the same thing. Again, I dunno if this is being focused on; though it sounds like it should be. Who knows, maybe it might throw some weight behind those ideals (separation of church and state? pfffft) you brought up above.

You know society's reaching a very difficult point when the institutions who imagine themselves to be around to "protect" humanity suddenly turn on it, trying to tear apart our attempts at unifying ourselves for once. Not that it's surprising, religion's always been creating these kinds of rifts (though someone might want to inform the vatican that the "saving us from ourselves" rhetoric has gotten stale since the reformation).

Well. I came, I saw, I blathered on, and now I'm going to bed. Um, sorry.

[cherrybomb07.livejournal.com]

Can I just ask who you're planning to vote for in the election? This is the first time I've been able to vote, and I'm really torn between Labour and the Lib Dems, neither of whom I'd be entirely happy to see in power, but God forbid that the Tories should get back in again.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

I for one have been heartened by the fact that it looks like Canada might legally recognize same-gender marriages. And while there has been a lot of religious opposition from around the world, there is a lot of religious support as well, and one must remember that the Anglican church in Canada spearheaded a lot of the right-to-marriage drive. For this reason, and because of the Episcopal church in the USA also being rather (but not completely) pro-marriage, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been asked to denounce both organizations and the Anglican Communion wants to expel both religious bodies. This hasn't just become a war between politics and religion, it's become a war WITHIN religions, with some denominations threatening to implode over it.

The irony is that countries with "official" churches now have the lowest level of religious observance, as though any one body being recognized as the "official" church takes the motivation away from folks to be involved in religion. However, the other irony is that these countries, due to reduced religious participation, seem to have the lowest levels of religious coercion of public officials. Britain currently is one of the countries enjoying this, along with the Scandanavian countries, France, and much of the rest of the EU. It would be shame if that were to change, because I can tell you that the Radical Religious Right in the US is a scary bunch and after last November they're more powerful than ever.

[capitalflash.livejournal.com]

well, given that christian voice are taking advice from fundamentalist groups over in america on how to demostrate outside abortion clinics, i can't help but agree. given how offended they are over the gay partnership bill, i can't help but agree.

Vote tactically

[ias.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm not Alex, so you can ignore this if you want, but I'd rather you didn't ;)

IMHO, it really depends on your own constituency. Do you think the Tories could slip in if there were a split vote where you are? In that case vote for whichever of Labour and the Lib Dems are likely to win.

If you are in a safe Tory seat, you have a bit more freedom and can vote for a fringe party with whose policies you most agree (the Monster Raving Loony Party actually tend to have a very sensible manifesto, lest we forget who first proposed that the voting age be lowered to 18). By voting for a fringe party you will be helping the party retain their deposit (if a party receives less than a certain percentage of votes cast they forfeit the money they have to put down in order to stand in the election) and thereby ensuring that the UK remains a multi-party democracy. For example, I live in a strong Tory European constituency so I voted for the unreconstructed Trots, not because I think they had a hope of winning, nor because I agree with many of their policies, but because I think they should be there and one should be able to vote communist if one wants.

If you really don't like any of the fringe parties (god forbid you've only got the BNP as a choice) you could vote for whichever of Labour or the Lib Dems you think it is most important to support in order for your vote to be counted in the pundits' 'n% of the population voted...' stats OR you could always spoil your ballot paper. It's easy to do - just write 'none of the above' on the paper. This is a method of legitimate protest that isn't use half as much as it ought to be. If all the people you stayed at home moaning they dont like any of the parties could actually be bothered to get off their backsides and spoilt their ballot papers then the parties would actually have to do something about engaging with these people. As it is they can willfully ignore the large non-voting minority and thus fringe elements (such as the religious right) can, by comparison, appear more powerful than in relaity they are. I don't want my country run by pressure groups, so I would rather people spoilt their ballot papers than did nothing.

I live in a safe(ish) Lib Dem seat but as late as 1992 it was Chris Patton's seat. At that point he was Chairman of the Conservative Party and his seat was one of the few high profile losses the Tories had in their 1992 win. I could risk voting Labour and hoping that Don Foster has enough local support that the Tories won't slip back in. The decision between Labour and the Lib Dems is very difficult. The Lib Dems can afford sensible policies such as local income tax, because it is unlikely they will become the next government, but they also have some incredibly right wing policies that my little leftish heart abhors. However, the same could be said about Labour. I'll probably make my decision based on their respective policies on education, international affairs, immigration and work/family balance when it comes down to it.

[emeraldsword.livejournal.com]

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/comment/0,7894,1438089,00.html

Apparently it was a survey done by Cosmopolitan that got people thinking about abortion - this article says that none of the party leaders are actually prepared to legislate on the issue.

Re: Vote tactically

[emeraldsword.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree with you on spoiling the ballot papers. I did politics at a-level and part of it was memorising turnout figures and analysing turnout - general opinion tends towards the idea that low turnout means that the voters are happy. If you aren't happy, you need to say so by the way that you vote, whether that is spoiling the ballot paper or voting for a fringe group.

sorry, i've got rather involved...

[emeraldsword.livejournal.com]

Personally, I didn't know anyone who actually went to church until I came to university, and that is the same for a lot of my friends. I therefore don't think that religion gaining a greater foothold than it already has is likely. Interestingly, one of the very religious girls I know (who holds all the really offensive beliefs) thinks that church and state should be completely separate and would like the bishops out of the House Of Lords. So even some religious fundamentalists wouldn't support a church takeover.

I also think that if things are going, gay rights will go way before abortion (the civil partnership bill isn't actually law yet) but here in Britain, no one is trying to get rid of abortion at all and only the Tories are even thinking of trying to stop gay rights. Yes, complacency is never, ever good (and I've recently decided to declare myself a feminist for this reason) but I'd say you're moving slightly towards 'unnecessary panic' side of the issue. What I would like to do with abortion is get it so that it actually is 'abortion on demand' in the early stages, rather than the current situation where you require the approval of two doctors and have to say that having the child will damage your mental health or physical health.

[ias.livejournal.com]

But that hasn't stopped the Catholic primate of England telling English Catholics that they should look to a candidates stance on abortion (above all ofther issues) when deciding who to vote for. The RC Church (or at least its leader in England) is pressing for it to become an election issue. Thank god the main leaders are resisting.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Now maybe I'm just living up to what you said in your post about complacency in Britain paving the way for this kind of change.

Respectfully, I agree with this. Granted I don't know you well, however you don't seem like the sort of person who wouldn't bother voting, I trust we can count on your not voting for the Tories at any rate.

As for the rest, I don't know. I too doubt abortion will be repealed, but it is a debate that we really don't want to see back in Parliament when they have other, relevant things to do. Yes, I may well be being overly paranoid on this, but really, I would rather be safe and do something to stop it from becoming a possibility in the first place - once that happens I feel a good part of the battle is already lost. The Christian Voice, as another commenter pointed out, have already sought advice from US fundamentalist groups over the Jerry Springer brouhaha, and they conducted a substantial email campaign against the Beeb. Grouped together and assuming for the sake of argument that all Christian Voice members live in one constituency, I think their voter base could easily swing a seat (though I appreciate this won't happen). The thing is, as we have seen now in two US Presidential Elections, the Christian right has been amazingly effective in calling out the Republican vote.

I'm not assuming you read the gay press - I don't know, your house may be filled to the rafters with back issues of the Pink Paper - but a lot of the columnists are starting to sing from the same hymn sheet now. I'd point you towards ... I think either January or February's Gay Times had a very good article on precisely this - not, obviously, occasioned by the abortion issue. I don't know it they publish online though, but I can always transcribe it and send it to you if you want.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Weelll, I'm not voting Labour because Gordon Brown is not their leader. I've come to feel lately that Labour have been good for this country in the past seven years, however, I cannot bring myself to vote for a man who lied to us, and mislead us into a war in Iraq.

If Tony Blair had done the decent thing and apologised, admitted he was wrong and resigned when the pressure over the Hutton Report and Kelly's apparent suicide was on, I would be more inclined to vote Labour again. I voted Labour in 2001 and thinking about it now, I don't especially regret that decision, because at the time we didn't know 9/11 was going to happen. For me, it's as simple as that. I quite like the Labour government, I like Gordon Brown immensely, and am very pleased about the Budget today (5 year tax free extension on my ISA account - whoopee), but Iraq and the conduct of the War on Terror is too big an issue for me to ignore, and I think it has been handled atrociously.

I don't know about sunny Exeter, but am pretty sure Wimbledon usually goes safe Lib Dem, like Kingston and Richmond? I'm in Esher & Walton here, which is a safe Tory seat, so there's no chance of unseating our MP (Teddy Taylor, if you're interested), but will be voting Lib Dem and am seriously considering becoming active in local campaigning on their behalf. I don't think a Charles Kennedy lead government would be good for Britain, but then I don't believe the Lib Dems will win in May, however, I like the fact that we have a viable third party in the UK, and I seriously think they could form a government sometime in the next 20 years. Note that Blair is trying to tar Lib Dem voters with the same brush as Ralph Nader voters in the States, which is frankly offensive.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Yeah, granted if abortion goes we're not going to start putting pregnant women on the rack, but I'm confused by your thinking - erm - can you explain further, maybe?

[saucy-wench.livejournal.com]

"Organised religion has no place in government."

Could you come over here and say that? Please?

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Pretty much my thinking is - there are rational, ethical grounds to oppose abortion. Myself I feel that they do not outweigh the rational, ethical grounds to support abortion rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. A question - do you respect those people who would see abortion become illegal? Cause I do.

I also don't see anything wrong with religious leaders urging people to make moral choices and to work to spread goodness in the world. It would be utterly hypocritical for leaders to say 'um, yeah, come to the services and pass the collection plate around, but don't actually, like, take any of these moral lessons with you out into the world.' Can you explain your problem with with priests articulating the fact that to be Catholic and to vote for pro-abortion MPs when an alternative is available is something of a contradiction?

[arcly.livejournal.com]

It's alarming, sure, but I can't see that there's much chance of religious pressure groups ever achieving much in this country. Regular church-goers are such a teeny tiny proportion of the population; most of us couldn't give a flying toss about religious opinion. (some stats here on organised religion in the UK, for anyone who's curious)

But yes, voting's definitely a good idea, and this is a very useful site for anyone wanting to know who their MP is, and how they've voted on various issues. (I'll be voting Labour - am not affiliated to any political party, but we have Jeremy Corbyn, and he's fairly sound)

[katiemorris.livejournal.com]

You can certainly count on me not voting for the Tories, or the present Labour party either (I loathe Blair). And I would never, ever not vote. I come from a strong East London, old Labour, background and my Father would have a heart attack if he thought a child of his had ever sunk so low as to vote Tory, bless him.

I don't take the Gay Times for the simple reason I'm 110% straight and love cock just as much as you probably do. But I lived for two years with my lovely little Gay Australian cousin, and we had some great arguments when pissed and she introduced me to lots of things I didn't even know existed.

I've looked on line at the Gay Times home page, but I think you have to subscribe for a year and I don't really want to do that. And, darling, I wouldn't know where to look in the local newsagent in Wallingford, South Orxfordshire (which is full of middle-class, toffee-nosed snobs who think that "Gay" is a dirty word) for a copy.

How difficult would it be for you to transcribe just a little? I AM really interested. I was horribly shocked when Bush got back in - now there was complacency - I never dreamed he would win again, that anyone could be so stupid as to vote for this man a SECOND time. How wrong was that? So I take on board that complacency can be dangerous and went to the link given me above by emeraldsword, which lead to an article in the Guardian entitled Sisters, Make some Noise. Part of it goes:

The danger of this is that we allow in, unchallenged, the view that termination is a shameful, horrid thing to do; from there, the taboo surrounding it calcifies, fewer people are prepared to defend it, and if abortion rights ever were to be seriously undermined, we simply wouldn't have the muscle, as a movement, to mobilise . . .

. . . We have to have the argument that nobody wants to have, before we forget how it's done.

I so agree with this. And as you say, it isn't just abortion - that could be the first brick in the wall of fundamentalism rising again.

So I guess what it comes down to is, thank you for making me aware about this. I will certainly pass the message along (although maybe not from a soapbox in Wallingford Town Centre) and any further info you can send along will be welcome.

[greyaugust.livejournal.com]

And then the brats at my Uni wonder why I want to move to Britain.

Any chance of getting this into Bush's hands? It'd be lovely if someone could manage that.

Out of curiosity, Britain (The UK? I'm never quite sure which is more appropriate in these things) doesn't have a separation of church and state clause written into the government anywhere, does it?

[malachan.livejournal.com]

We have an established church, so in Britain we don't have a formal separation of church and state (nor do we have a written constitution that such a separation could be written down in!)

[greyaugust.livejournal.com]

Got it, thanks much. At least then bringing religion into government runs on the less hypocritical end. Sad you beat us to it, considering we DO have it written down.

[greyaugust.livejournal.com]

Understood, thanks. I guess I just meant that we do have the concept as tradition and a point of pride, if nothing else. So the fact the British- who, remember, we fought with freedom of/from state dictated religion as one of our goals- have, at the moment, a more secular society is just kind of embarassing.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

But, the RC Church has been talking about this since we gained the current Pope in 1979. It might be newly promoted in your country, but it's been a prime motivator for the Church internationally for decades.

[elfgift.livejournal.com]

"We have freedom of religion in this country, and this should reasonably translate to freedom from religion, as well."

Very well put.
As is your entire post.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Sorry, something is wonky with my comment notification and I haven't checked in here for a couple of days - I'm happy to dig it out and try and transcribe it if you'd like that - it'd be good practice for me :)

My only experience of Wallingford has been taking part in a regatta there when I was, what, 14 or so, but I know Henley well, and wouldn't recommend any soapbox ranting in that neighbourhood.

[prettyveela.livejournal.com]

Wow. It's always a joy to journal roam your friend of friends list and find an entry like this. I very much agree with you. Great post!

*goes back to journal roaming*

[benjj.livejournal.com]

Here bloody here. And people round here can't seem to understand why I complain about the Church of England bishops being allowed to stand up and speak in the house of lords (or, worse, vote) You can't have moods on comments I think else I'd try and fill it up with disestablishmentarianistic

[shmeep01.livejournal.com]

Your back!

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Don't suppose you'd consider unlocking your hp fic, please?

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I do not do fandom. You cannot persuade me to do fandom. Please just don't even ask.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Cool.