The church this, the church that
The effort to ban hybrid embryos failed.
The Roman Catholic Church has branded the use of hybrid embryos as “monstrous” and says tinkering with life in this way is immoral.
So what? Who cares what the Roman Catholic Church says? The Roman Catholic church says a lot of things, and many of them are morally execrable. The Roman Catholic Church also does a lot of things, and many of those stink too. The Roman Catholic Church worries far too much about cells in dishes and far too little about existing, thinking people. The Roman Catholic Church gets too much respectful attention, and it gets this respectful attention by staging moral panics about things that are not morally significant. That’s a foolish arrangement.
And of course the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t think ‘tinkering with life’ is immoral. It has no objection to agronomy or antibiotics, for instance. It doesn’t mean ‘life,’ it means ‘what it chooses to think of as human life.’ It gets a rhetorical boost by calling it just ‘life,’ and it shouldn’t get away with it.
Bravo! Made me feel good just to read it. You must have felt good saying it too! About time someone told like it is!
Don’t talk to me about Life!
Life is what you eat for breakfast.
Alas, too many people still pay attention to what the Catholic church (as well as many evangelical Christian organizations) think. An annoying number of them are politicians. I’m glad to see that the ban failed in the U.K.
Having to listen to these bastards go on about “desecration of life” is like being lectured on animal rights by Hitler.
If only a public figure had the guts to tell the catholic church to piss off.
And if only the tone of offense matched the level of significance of this particular debate.
Maybe catholics shouldn’t be allowed in the public forum; after all, its only a few hundred years since they burned people for disagreement, or having warts, or being Jewish. Shame on them for being quoted in the papers.
Maybe you could get a law passed – ignorant Christian religious people, who speak outside the privacy of their homes, will be lawfully subject to ‘free speech facilitation’, wherein they are surrounded by women pointing their fingers and chanting “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!”
Journalists who report these contemptible views without an obligatory framing of contempt such as is normally reserved for child abusers, will be forced to wipe the spittle off the floor after the session.
And I will just say that the previous posts exhibit such well-grounded moral sense (IMHO) OB that I am stunned how passionate you get against opinions being spouted by people pontificating from a Christian viewpoint.
You correctly point out tripe when peoiple spout it. Doesn’t it seem worth acknowledging common humanity, different viewpoints and frames of reference that create unreconcilable differences on when human life deserves protection?
Instead it seems to me that your line has been crossed: someone on the wrong side in THIS issue is not worthy of your mormal courtesy, or understanding.
Still maybe its me – I ‘just don’t get’ how morally reprehensible is is to disagree on a social status marker issue.
ChrisPer
You are quite right that everyone has the right to their own point of view, and to believe what they like. I think that OB’s issue is more to do with the fact that the Church seem to think they deserve / are often afforded more respect for their point of view than any other organisation because of who they are not what they say. I have to admit that i am often bothered by the fact that whenever any news agency is looking for a sound bite on a moral question they always go to the clergy, rather than a secular autority.
Apologies for the spelling errors and gramma in the previous post, only had the one cup of coffe this morning.
ChrisPer:
Part of the reason I think it’s so annoying when Catholics inveigh on this kind of issue (and this holds for plenty of evangelical Protestants too) is that they argue from such a bizarre, abstract point of view that it ends up being just empty verbalising, or just veiled religious language (which is arguably the same thing).
With the ‘human dignity’ issue, why is it that they only think about the dignity of embryos (who probably don’t have the capacity to be dignified or undignified), or even worse, the dignity of ‘humanity’ as an abstract category? Why do they never ever think about the dignity of the people affected by these issues – the dignity of the person gradually losing their brain function through horrible degenerative diseases, the dignity of the person who wants to not be a breeding machine, the dignity of the person with an unwanted pregnancy etc.? The reason is because they are not really referring to dignity, but sanctity, but no-one thinks that is a good form of argument anymore, so they just have to mislead people with rhetoric. And they can’t admit this when confronted.
I was watching an edited version of the debates on the amendments on saviour siblings and hybrids on BBC Parliament yesterday. After blustering on about the ethical wrongness of one of the proposed things (I’m guessing hybrids, but I can’t remember), an MP was challenged to say what exactly was morally wrong with them – and he said something like “oh, I have the right to my ethical beliefs”, as if that were sufficient in a Parliamentary debate. If we only cared about what he believed in and not why, then what does he think the debate is for anyway? Sigh. Still, the amendment was defeated, so I shouldn’t complain.
I’ve been thinking about a remark of John Maynard Keynes, as quoted by A.C.Grayling in his book, The Form of Things:
“When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?”
We need to persuade the world that flexibility, and a willingness to admit the necessity of change, is a positive virtue, close kin to courage.
By comparison, the stultified inflexibility of churches in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, is a form of cowardice.
Chrisper
What’s your problem? What are you so pissed off about?
Notice (if you can manage it) that I didn’t say anything about catholics being allowed. I said the opinions cited were worthless, and I said the catholic church gets far too much attention. That’s not the same thing as saying catholics shouldn’t be allowed in the public forum.
“wherein they are surrounded by women pointing their fingers”
That’s really cute. Knee-jerk misogyny shows its ugly brainless head. Look, bub, a woman runs this site, everything on it except the articles is written by a woman; if you’re pissed off by a woman saying stuff, maybe you should spare yourself and stop reading this particular website. I’m not about to shut up on your say-so.
“Doesn’t it seem worth acknowledging common humanity, different viewpoints and frames of reference that create unreconcilable differences on when human life deserves protection?”
Common humanity? Not particularly. It seems superfluous. I’m not denying anyone’s common humanity; I’m disagreeing; different thing. And no, I don’t think it’s worth “acknowledging” different viewpoints if by that you mean saying they’re equally valid or serious or thoughtful or well-reasoned or compassionate or reasonable, because my point is that they’re not. I’m already “acknowledging” their existence, by disagreeing with them, but if you mean something more affirmative than that, forget it, because they get that kind of acknowledgement from lots and lots of people, such as lazy journalists, and my whole point is that they don’t earn it. My whole point is that a stupid empty made-up bit of pseudo-moral “sensitivity” is being used to try to block medical research that could help real people as opposed to making a fetish of a clump of cells.
Im sure that if science could create a race of permanently boyish, compliant slaves to sexually service the Priesthood, the Church would have no problem with that.
Ophelia,
Thanks for catching that — ChrisPer´s post was disturbing but you managed to put the finger on it. Ouf! But, damned now I´m praising you as well – do us a favour, will you, go astray just once; we might be tempted to overpraise you.
A good piece of irony is: those with a big issue on Darwinism are quick to go embrace it, to go all apocalyptical on us ;-)
But it’s more heinous than ironic – as a convinced Darwinist I am very scared that we are playing out of our current league of knowledge.
Has anybody read a book called “Truth Matters”? In it the authors write about a period when the eugenic movement, with all its ever-so-clever celebrities saw the future as theirs. Not so however in what the authors call “Catholic countries”.As the authors point out “the Catholic church consistently opposed eugenics”.Was the Church right then? And might it just conceivably be right now?
No. The fact that the church was right about X in the past does not mean it is right about Z now. The church can be right about some things and wrong about others. I’m sure the church has lots and lots of views which I, for one, could easily agree with. That’s because all of us have such areas of overlap. But that’s beside the point. Having been right about eugenics in the past does not make the church right about stem cells now.
If you want to make an actual argument against stem cell research, by all means do, but just waving at eugenics won’t do the trick.
As a regular reader, occasional commenter and as someone with an incurable condition which stem cell research just might one day lead to a treatment for (albeit probably not in time to help me, but that’s not the point…) can I just say a big thank you to OB for by far the most perceptive and to-the-point comments I’ve seen on the issue.
There’s also the bit about how eugenics was terrible pseudoscience used to advance a monstrous, racist political agenda, whereas stem cell research is actual science being conducted with the express purpose of curing the sick. Not really the same thing, if you ask me.
Sound riposte, OB; and in a tone of mere righteous irritation which is easy to respect, compared with apparently being volunteer one for the circle of gynocentric correction.
No response to my hypothesised reason why people could get so steamy about this cell thing? (wrong side of a status marker issue?) Lets face it, NOT doing stem cells seems to get the passion associated with ‘abortion is murder’ fanatics, from the opposite side. Or is it ONLY irritation at idiots being allowed to frame the ethical rules without any grounding that makes any sense?
I don’t think restricting research on contended moral ground is actually murder, though you might correct me on that.
And you have also been very strong on your attitude to ‘framing’ debate. Well the clergy get asked to chime in here because the JOURNALIST is looking for someone who appears to be a stakeholder or who can take a clear position for his/her story, as they need a FRAME for their readers. Maybe we are getting a horrid availability bias in who is asked; but going to professional ethicists alone seems to get silly news stories like “Peter Singer says its OK to have sex with animals and eliminate the handicapped’ and that ISN’T what the journalists want to present relatively normal readers.
As for the misogyny charge, I agree it was a nasty image. Also ‘to the point’.
I was trying to get away from raising the old ‘behead all priests’ nonsense, and thought how women in China were cowed in ‘struggle’ sessions if they conceive a second child… social pressure alone, as emotional torture.
Obviously you need not feel criticised as a woman just because an image of women using social power to impose conformity is disturbing. Your contributions stand independently and with illumination by that fact.
I find ChrisPer’s image of the women circling round anti-stem cell Christians to be highly ironic, because in real life it’s pro-life Christians who stalk pro-choice women who work at Planned Parenthood and other organizations, and protest outside their homes.
Jenavir, thats all very well, but in MY country we Christians mostly STFU about abortion except in private. I support the right to choose an abortion for my own children, and would never criticise anyone for making that choice because its theirs. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe its a traumatic situation to be forced into making that choice.
The circle of condemnation is a bit different over in the USA as OB has often pointed out, but to me I see two cultures – not CP Snow’s but the liberal vs the conservative. We live in the liberal, and the circle of condemnation I have experienced is the ‘nice people’s’ socially-required opprobrium against all shooters after the Port Arthur massacre, even on the explicit grounds of their supposed race and sex. The PC hate fests the Australian media regularly launch are appalling because there is so little to stop their percicious effect on the victims – eg historian Geoff Blainey falsely condemned for racism, a Governor-General driven from office for nothing, a pathetic rural politician beaten up into a major racism scare.
If you can’t identify a ‘liberal hate issue’ you are not trying. Ask, for instance, what does the NYT say about the NRA?
Getting off topic – my apologies, I shouldn’t have posted that last.
OB: ‘What is your problem?’
Tone. Yours astonishes me on your hot-button issues. Sorry.
“Lets face it, NOT doing stem cells seems to get the passion associated with ‘abortion is murder’ fanatics, from the opposite side.”
Is this one of those “every atheist who says it in public is one of those mean bad militant atheists” things? I don’t see any developmental biologists picketing churches, but perhaps you know better.
Now, that said, I’d be pretty aggravated if I were trying to do potentially life-saving medical research for the benefit of all mankind and found myself opposed by a bunch of people who insist that a clump of cells the size of a pinhead should be treated as if it were a fully grown human being. And who furthermore go on to tell me that this is an ethical mandate handed down from on high and there can be no compromise.
Either you capitulate or you resist; thank heaven we have people who resist.
I mean, honestly. What kind of productive conversation are we possibly going to have with the RCC? The whole point of their organization is that they dig in their heels and reject liberalization and progress right up until continuing to do so would render them powerless or irrelevant, at which time they make up a half-assed theological justification for flip-flopping. We can assume that on any given topic that even vaguely touches on biology their answer is going to be “no, that’s sacred” for at least the next six centuries. Now what?
“I don’t think restricting research on contended moral ground is actually murder”
I didn’t say it was. So what’s your point?
Status marker – what status marker? You take Tory MPs to be on the low side and me to be on the high side? You must be joking.
Why am I supposed to care about the socially-approved opprobrium you know about? Why is that supposed to justify this rant that seems to have nothing to do with what I said?
Tone. Well, tough. I don’t think people should make a moral parade of opposing medical research on footling grounds. I think the nonsense about cells is exactly as weighty as saying ‘Don’t, it’s icky.’ I think it’s arrogant and presumptuous and badly wrong for people to do that (and to congratulate themselves for moral depth in the process).
Best of luck, patrick. I hope there’s a treatment sooner than expected.
Yeah, what dzd said. We crossed.
What Jenavir said, too.
Bit of a mobbing, Chris! Sorry. But your tone wasn’t exactly restrained either, and in your case it was personal.
Also – come to think of it – I don’t see what’s so shocking about the tone. The word ‘execrable’? The word ‘stinks’? That’s about it, as far as I can see. The rest of it is just rather flat statement. I see nothing in it that justifies the nastiness of your tone. So there.
Well, I engaged and got piqued repiqued and capotted, so I apologise for MY tone.
You do well, in most things!
I suggest that people who think truth matters should stop accepting its lying self-styling as a ‘catholic’ church. It excludes from its management (a) anyone who doesn’t have a penis (b) anyone who does have a penis but isn’t prepared to frustrate their instinct to live in a loving relationship with another human (c) anyone who has a penis and prefers penises to breasts.
[(b) is particularly odd, given “Saint” Paul’s opinion that bishops must be the husband of one wife: 1 Timothy 3:2]
I had taken to calling it the Roman 50% catholic church. However, 50 is too large. Roman semicatholic would be likewise generous. How about Roman millicatholic?
[[Buzzer noise]] So sorry, but the Catholic Church has been disqualified from any commentary on this subject. It should be more widely known that given the decades-long conspiracy by the Vatican to cover up rampant clerical sodomy of children, the Catholic Church will not be allowed to pontificate on moral issues for one century. Check back with us then.
Thank you.
JoB,
What exactly is a “Darwinist”?
I only just discovered that the person chairing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (UK) is the daughter of Jacob Bronowski. She seems well-qualified to tell religious folk where to get off (and not just because of that)
G Tingey,
So JoB has a fundamentalist christian agenda?
I agree to an extent with your definition, hence my concern when a non-fundy uses the term to describe himself.
I’m on the road at some meetings in Toronto on assisted dying, so I don’t get to check in much. However, Ophelia’s comments on who wants to know what Chatolics think on anything was refeshing and frank. It’s about time someone said it straight out. As Ophelia says, “Who cares what the Roman Catholic Church says?”
The church, though sometimes, of course, hits on the right thing – the odds favour it of course – has been, systematically wrong on so many things it is hard to get all excited because they happened to come down on the right side of the eugenics issue. It didn’t take the genius of Zarathustra to come up with that one. But where else have they been significantly right at the same time that they swam against the current? This might be a good dissertation topic.
The problem with the church is that it is wedded to the idea of the soul. That’s why cells in petrie dishes are such a problem for it. Do they have a soul or not? It’s a fake question, but they keep on making declarations anyway. The problem is that they occupy positions which are still accorded great respect and social power. No one wants to keep catholics out of the public forum, but they don’t deserve the position they hold in it.
During WW II Pius XII might have done a lot more to moderate the savagery of the Nazis. He didn’t. All he did was to make a few allusions to those suffering for no other reason than their race, but, though urged strongly to do it, he did not once mention the Jews as the particular reference of his allusions. He may have permitted a number of Jews to be hidden in and about the Vatican, but he also enabled (with about the same amount of care) SS criminals to get away. But then the moral issues were pretty clear. They objected strongly to the so-called ‘euthanasia’ project, and got Hitler to stop. Now they are browbeating people because they don’t toe a line that no one else sees. But no one’s threatening to drop a bomb on the Vatican, so they have no reluctance to say things loud and clear.
Besides, the Jehovah’s Witnesses got it right too, because there was bound to come a time when they’re refusal to be complicit with any state was on the right side, morally, but do we hold this principle up as a good one, in general? I think not.
Quite frankly, they disgust me. I’m glad Ophelia told it just like it is.
Sorry about the ‘they’re’ in the last para. It should read ‘their’ of course.