Monday, July 6, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

The curse of religion

by AC Grayling - guardian.co.uk

Thanks to LWS for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/01/religion-euthanasia

News that the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols and the chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, have joined forces in a campaign to prolong the sufferings of those incurably or terminally ill – by opposing a change in the law that would decriminalise those who accompany anyone who goes to Switzerland in search of help to die – comes as no surprise. A preference for dogma over kindness, for superstition-based moralism over humaneness, is standard fare for religion, as history too loudly attests.

Nevertheless it obliges one, wearily and with distaste, to return to the question of religion in the public domain. One would of course like to see humankind wake up from the sleep of reason that enables religious beliefs and the institutions built on them to persist. One would like a remark like Sir Harry Kroto's "the only mistake Bernie Madoff made was to promise returns in this life" to startle everyone into a great shout of laughter that would strip away the pretensions of religion and lay bare its absurdity and poverty. But while the man-made curse of religion exists, the question of what archbishops and rabbis do in the way of trying to subvert the ethical maturation of humankind has to be addressed.

So I repeat: in a free society people must be allowed to believe what they like, even stupid, ignorant and absurd things, provided they do no harm to others. Religious organisations have every right to exist and have their say, just as any other self-selected, self-constituted interest group does, such as trade unions and political parties. But religious organisations have to recognise that they are such groups, and nothing more than such groups – that they are civil society organisations like trade unions, existing to protect and promote their own interests – and although they have the same rights, they do not have any greater rights.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/01/religion-euthanasia

Posted: Monday, July 6, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #393692 by critica on July 6, 2009 at 5:42 am

.This used to be called hypocrisy, but no doubt modern theology has come up with a convoluted polysyllable to redefine it.

Theology does naught but convolute terms, ideas and indeed reality itself to twist things to breaking point; so they might fit within the incoherent fuzz that is the quagmire of religion seeking rational understanding.

Other Comments by critica

2. Comment #393694 by Johnny O on July 6, 2009 at 6:02 am

What a brilliantly written article. Whenever I get asked by people, "What have you got against Religion", I will point them this way.

It's not necessarily that I want and end to Religion, (although it would be nice), it's that I want to end it’s unjustifiably, elevated status in society.

All Hail A. C. Grayling

Other Comments by Johnny O

3. Comment #393696 by hungarianelephant on July 6, 2009 at 6:12 am

It's a bit rich to call "hypocrisy" on a group who are opposing legislation which would institutionalise hypocrisy.

Either we believe that euthanasia should be allowed, or we don't. Pretending to criminalise it, while turning a blind eye to people going to Switzerland to do it, is a cop out and utterly hypocritical - every bit as bad as the Irish mentality which says that abortion is ok as long as you go to England to get one. Say what you like about Williams and Sacks, but at least they're clear on this issue.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

4. Comment #393697 by nickthelight on July 6, 2009 at 6:15 am

Whilst I agree with the main theme of A.C Grayling that religions have it all their own way and receive an unjustifiable slice of the tax payer’s pie. I can't help but think that, like in the United States, where religious groups receive no government funding, instead raising their own. This would cause religious groups, again as in the United States to become entrepreneurial, business like enterprises. This, in some way, is perhaps why religious groups in the U.S are so successful?

Other Comments by nickthelight

5. Comment #393698 by bendigeidfran on July 6, 2009 at 6:17 am

Comment #393696 by hungarianelephant

If they see Switzerland and still want to die then they really mean it. Otherwise it could just be the misery of living in England.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

6. Comment #393699 by Raiko on July 6, 2009 at 6:18 am

As I said before - why people like Vincent Nichols are allowed to have any voice and impact concerning topics on ethics and moral is beyond me.

Excusing Catholic pedophile priests by downplaying the deed to thinking they're "taking a little comfort from children" did it for me. Vincent Nichols, shut up about moral, you don't have enough of it yourself!

Other Comments by Raiko

7. Comment #393702 by CaptainMandate on July 6, 2009 at 6:26 am

it needed to be said

If these backward self-appointed guardians had their way, the means wouldn't even exist to keep people with severe diseases alive.

Death comes to us all. we have a right to some dignity and control in the face of such certainty.

People need to wake up to the fact that religion IS WRONG!

not just the extremists (Like Rev Nazir gay-basher) but all of them

People will assist their loved ones the end their lives if the need arises. and they will face the consequenses. This hurts the terminally ill the most because it won't stop them persuing an end to their suffering but it will ensure that their dying moments will be tainted by the worry about what fate awaits their loved ones who stay behind and go home to face a bit of ancient tribal superstition that has infected a legal system designed to ensure people can live a safe, civilised life

The law needs addressing but as A C Grayling has pointed out, we have too many of these children in the house of lords to ever hope for a grown-up debate

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

8. Comment #393709 by sunbeamforjesus on July 6, 2009 at 6:43 am

The extirpation of religion from our lives is a long term aspiration,but in the short term we can only battle against moves such as this.The whole fabric of our lives in the U.K.is blighted by the position that religion has demanded and won for itself.From bishops in the house of lords to the the bloody royal family, the whole stinking dungheap will one day be swept away.It may not be in my lifetime but I am convinced it can be achieved in this century.In the meantime 'little victories!'

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

9. Comment #393718 by huzonfurst on July 6, 2009 at 7:01 am

Nickthelight (#4), religious organizations in the US are exempt from both taxation and oversight, which amounts to a huge public subsidy. Their finances are not subject to auditing except under exceptional circumstances, and they are allowed to discriminate in hiring unlike most other businesses. They also blatantly violate the law against campaigning for political candidates, receiving only an occasional slap on the wrist for it when too many people notice.

The Boy Scouts are generally allowed free use of public facilities even though they enforce their religion-based policy of discriminating against gays and atheists. In San Diego several acres of prime parkland are leased exclusively to the Boy Scouts for *one dollar per year* - even now, when our city government is desperately looking for ways to save money.

The amount of uncollected taxes on church property is so great that some studies estimate that if this law were overturned the personal income tax would become unnecessary.

It's positively obscene how much financial support is given to churches in the US. The original intent was that they would in exchange care for the poor, which today is done only grudgingly and inadequately. Government could easily provide this service if churches paid taxes like every other business.

It's similar to the "drug war," where billions of dollars are squandered to no purpose except to enrich certain interest groups at the expense of the rest of us. Imagine where society would be without these two grotesque albatrosses weighing us down year after year.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

10. Comment #393727 by Chris Davis on July 6, 2009 at 7:31 am

@ Hungarianelephant

Pretending to criminalise it, while turning a blind eye to people going to Switzerland to do it, is a cop out and utterly hypocritical - every bit as bad as the Irish mentality which says that abortion is ok as long as you go to England to get one.

I agree with you entirely in principle, but realpolitik makes me want to support any option that reduces harm. Making it a little easier for people to go abroad for their euthanasia will do that.

Holding out for legalisation of euthanasia in the UK is a long prospect. There's a risk of course that providing loopholes in this way will allow the issue to be swept under the carpet (I imagine the Irish abortion issue is blunted somewhat by the option of travel to the mainland).

My conscience won't, however, allow me to require those wishing for dignified death to martyr themselves yet further on the altar of ideological purity. Help for those who need it now trumps the ugliness of this half-measure.

Other Comments by Chris Davis

11. Comment #393733 by hungarianelephant on July 6, 2009 at 7:48 am

10. Comment #393727 by Chris Davis

You are right, of course.

The comparison breaks down on the ground. Ireland clings devotedly to its abortion ban, and even gets the rest of Europe to pay lip-service to it in order to try to prevent the blue rinse brigade voting against Lisbon II. Whereas I don't suppose that anyone will see this measure as anything other than a compromise rather than a principled stance.

Still, moralising when you don't have a moral position is a dangerous political game.

Somewhat off topic, there's little doubt that the "right to travel" - yes, they really do call it that - has blunted the abortion debate here. It's not a trivial matter, though. The 10,000 women who make the journey, mostly on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, are probably keeping the state airline in business at the moment, to say nothing of the discreet private clinics around England's major cities, staffed almost exclusively by expats.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

12. Comment #393758 by j.mills on July 6, 2009 at 9:50 am

If we're talking moral principle, why should assisted suicide be available only to those who are terminally ill? Once concede that the decision is theirs, and it's not obvious why the rest of us shouldn't have the same right. The issue revolves around the terminally ill because they are unable to do the deed themselves. But if I, being of sound body and mind, decide I've had enough, I'd have to throw myself under a train or off a bridge or hang myself or something untidy like that, leaving a traumatic mess for those around the event. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if I could end my life with the same dignity as the Swiss system offers? After all, my right to life is meaningless if in practice it is an obligation to live.

(For clarity, I'm not remotely suicidal! I'm just interested in whether folks see a difference in principle between assisted suicide for the terminally ill or for everybody who wants it.)

Other Comments by j.mills

13. Comment #393765 by fsm1965 on July 6, 2009 at 10:15 am

RE: 12. Comment #393758 by j.mills

Wishing to commit suicide without a good reason would be classified as insane and would probably see you in a padded cell.

The only reason acceptable would be a painful life remaining (only physical pain would be counted, emotional would not be acceptable).

IMO euthanasia should be available as it is for animals "putting them out of their misery", or considered as a welfare issue. We decide for the animals benefit what is the best for them. For humans, the availability of a decision-maker, when the patient is incapable, is where the problems lie.

Other Comments by fsm1965

14. Comment #393780 by friendlypig on July 6, 2009 at 11:38 am

Remember that until the 60's it was a criminal offence in the UK to commit, or attempt to commit, suicide. Fortunately that has now been repealed.

However, as we know, it is still an offence to aid, abet or counsel someone in the act of committing suicide. This ostensibly is to protect those who may not be able to make that decision for themselves or have been or are likely to be coerced into making that decision (avaricious relatives who know where the will is hidden). It takes no notice of the individual's wishes whatsoever; however, although the law is in place, no-one has ever been prosecuted for helping another to commit suicide.

But we should always remember that if we transgress and take this irrevocable step our immortal soul will never enter heaven and we cannot be buried in consecrated ground!

Aw shucks, I guess I'll have to go up in a puff of smoke then

Other Comments by friendlypig

15. Comment #393782 by Bonzai on July 6, 2009 at 11:41 am

friendlypig,

Remember that until the 60's it was a criminal offence in the UK to commit, or attempt to commit, suicide. Fortunately that has now been repealed.

Interesting that they had a law against a crime which would carry a punishment only if it is unsuccessful.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #393785 by the great teapot on July 6, 2009 at 11:47 am

What was the punishment, the death penalty?

Other Comments by the great teapot

17. Comment #393791 by detox on July 6, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Comment #393765 by fsm1965

Wishing to commit suicide without a good reason would be classified as insane and would probably see you in a padded cell.

I am in excruciating pain. Unless you've been in my shoes you have no idea how debilitating and unbearable my condition is. I suffer from an illness that I have had every known treatment for for 30 years with no success. There is no known cure. May I please be allowed to kill myself?

My illness? Depression.

Good enough reason?

Other Comments by detox

18. Comment #393795 by flying goose on July 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Is this imposing, as Keith Porteous-Wood suggests or is it a seeking to persuade their Lordships?

To impose something suggests an abilty to impose.

We shall see, but I very much doubt that they will be listened to.

Other Comments by flying goose

19. Comment #393797 by Corylus on July 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Comment #393782 by Bonzai:

Interesting that they had a law against a crime which would carry a punishment only if it is unsuccessful.

More of a punishment for ineptitude than anything else then.

Comment #393785 by the great teapot:

What was the punishment, the death penalty?

You joke, but at one point yes (seventeenth century and before). Plus you got to be buried in unconsecrated ground and have your assets confiscated - thus denying your family any inheritance.

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #393814 by the great teapot on July 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Corylus, I feel chastised,
But thanx for realising I was joking,
most here don't.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #393816 by Corylus on July 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Comment #393814 by the great teapot:

But thanx for realising I was joking,

You joke a fair bit of the time. The grumpy guts persona doesn't fool me.

I'll stop now before I make you blush

Other Comments by Corylus

22. Comment #393817 by the great teapot on July 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm

:)

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #393819 by bendigeidfran on July 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Comment #393791 by detox

What size shoes do you have?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

24. Comment #393831 by detox on July 6, 2009 at 2:18 pm

10 UK. 43/44 Continental. Loakes. It doesn't look like there are any takers for my comment and it doesn't look like I'll be cashing in my chips anytime soon. When I do, you get first dibs on the footwear.

Other Comments by detox

25. Comment #393846 by j.mills on July 6, 2009 at 3:01 pm

fsm1965 said:

What constitutes a good reason? It's entirely possible that I might look at my life, my prospects, my finances, the people around me, the state of the world, etc, and make a perfectly rational decision that I don't wish to continue. I needn't be ill or even depressed.

In that circumstance, I can already kill myself (legally as well as practically) and no one can stop me (unless I'm a klutz). So why shouldn't the option of a simple injection be available to me, thus avoiding all that mess? It's only recognising the reality. Decriminalising assisted suicide for the intolerably ill only brings them back to the same position of choice that the rest of us are already in. Granted you'd want to wrap the option in safeguards; but ultimately the state should recognise my (unpreventable) autonomy over my own life. By ignoring it, the state ensures that suicides (which are inevitable) are more traumatic (and expensive to deal with) than they need to be.

Discuss.

Other Comments by j.mills

26. Comment #393928 by Border Collie on July 6, 2009 at 6:34 pm

More of the SOS ... institutions demanding that they, not us, own our lives.

Thank you A.C., Richard, Dan, Sam, Christopher, et al. Every time I read one of your articles I move another millimeter away from delusion.

Other Comments by Border Collie

27. Comment #393959 by Enlightenme.. on July 6, 2009 at 8:56 pm

j.mills,
Your question is a very good one, and some debate was bought about in UK when the teenage rugby player who ended up in a wheelchair could no longer bear his life's burden and went to Switzerland.

I very reluctantly feel forced to answer that people should be able to push their own plunger.

fsm's answer that most people should be termed temporarily insane holds some questionable comfort, but his separating-out of physical from mental illness is insane.
Clearly he has mercifully not come into close contact yet with the miseries that can inflict the mind.

Sorry!
[/bummer]

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

28. Comment #393962 by cerebate on July 6, 2009 at 10:10 pm

What constitutes a good reason? It's entirely possible that I might look at my life, my prospects, my finances, the people around me, the state of the world, etc, and make a perfectly rational decision that I don't wish to continue. I needn't be ill or even depressed.

Is it your position that the state shouldn't intervene in this case?

Other Comments by cerebate

29. Comment #393977 by bendigeidfran on July 7, 2009 at 12:44 am

Comment #393831 by detox

What size feet do you have?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

30. Comment #393978 by bendigeidfran on July 7, 2009 at 12:51 am

j.mills - It should be illegal just to force people to have a little rethink. If someone can't work out how to kill themselves then they're so stupid as to be not very alive anyway.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

31. Comment #393984 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2009 at 1:26 am

30. Comment #393978 by bendigeidfran

It should be illegal just to force people to have a little rethink. If someone can't work out how to kill themselves then they're so stupid as to be not very alive anyway.

Another possibility is that many failed suicide "attempts" are not attempts at suicide at all, but attempts to get attention. That's the view of a number of healthcare professionals I've encountered. I have no idea how you would go about testing that.

If people are really trying to kill themselves, it's hardly likely that a visit from the constabulary or a solicitor's letter will deter them. If they aren't, they almost certainly have problems which won't be solved by making them criminals.

(Edit - Tuesday morning grammar)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

32. Comment #394021 by rod-the-farmer on July 7, 2009 at 3:47 am

I await (not even a bit breathlessly) these Four Horsemen of A Pox on Their Lips putting the assisted suicide issue on hold, while they prey together on the amputees of their communities.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

33. Comment #394049 by Follow Peter Egan on July 7, 2009 at 4:43 am

Excusing Catholic pedophile priests by downplaying the deed to thinking they're "taking a little comfort from children" did it for me. Vincent Nichols, shut up about moral, you don't have enough of it yourself!

Raiko, would you be able to expand on that£ Is this something that Nichols has said£ I'm deeply concerned about this man, not least for the embarrassing reason that I went to the same school he did (many years later, I might point out).

As for the article, Grayling is on the money as always.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

34. Comment #394156 by fsm1965 on July 7, 2009 at 7:19 am

RE: 27. Comment #393959 by Enlightenme..

Clearly he has mercifully not come into close contact yet with the miseries that can inflict the mind.

I have seen first-hand the illness of depression, I was merely saying that medically this is termed "treatable". I have my doubts.

The difficulty lies in separating the rational decision to end one's life, and the (possibly temporarily) depressed crying out for help.

It is not always easy to come to rational rules that could be applied, and I am not medically qualified. I have my opinion when
I should be allowed to go, but others have different ideas. Unfortunately we are left with a nonsense law where if you are capable of performing the act, there is no problem, it is when you are physically unable and need assistance then the helper is in legal difficulties.

Other Comments by fsm1965

35. Comment #394164 by j.mills on July 7, 2009 at 7:46 am

hungarianelephant pointed out:

Another possibility is that many failed suicide "attempts" are not attempts at suicide at all, but attempts to get attention. That's the view of a number of healthcare professionals I've encountered. I have no idea how you would go about testing that.

Situation's slightly different if you're offering the punter a lethal injection. You'd have to make it clear to them that there was no way back. I don't say that solves the problem, it's just another factor.

On the other hand, once they're dead, we'll never have to face the 'mistake' of having allowed an unwanted death because there will be no complainant... Even with the death sentence, new evidence can arise later showing wrongful conviction; but not so with suicide. If somebody says they want to die, on what grounds could we argue that they're wrong? We could certainly argue that they might feel differently in 90 days (which I think would be a sensible compulsory interlude: see Nick Hornby's A Long Way Down); but ultimately (until the development of a neurological test) we have to take their word for it about how they feel.

I'm just talking, y'unnerstan', I'm not passing laws here. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

36. Comment #394222 by Lucas on July 7, 2009 at 10:33 am

detox - By all means, take yourself out. One less whiner, right? (Before that, though, get yourself a good solid weed habit and see what happens. Can't hurt. If it doesn't help, you won't need your short term memory or lungs anyway.)

Other Comments by Lucas

37. Comment #394280 by Paul Gray on July 7, 2009 at 4:36 pm

"I'll just nip off and shoot meself"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1nxaQhsaaw

Steak or salad gentlemen?

Other Comments by Paul Gray

38. Comment #394488 by detox on July 8, 2009 at 9:55 am

Thanks Lucas. You're probably right, I should just take myself out and then there'd be one less whiner. If there's one thing I keep saying to myself it's - when will those bloody depressives just stop whining! For the love of mike, all day long, whinge - I'm so sad, whine - it's all so black. Just do it already and give the rest of us a break.

Right? Pass the doobie.

Anyhoo - back in the real world, I was merely trying to illustrate the point being made by j.mills. Unsuccessfully.

Most of us here, I hope, would agree that religion has nothing to offer in this debate just as it has nothing to say in any discussion of abortion.

However, just sidelining religion doesn't necessarily mean the answers become easier for us. What Grayling calls the 'ethical maturation of humankind' is not going to be an easy road but it does require us to ask the difficult questions.

AYW

Other Comments by detox

Reload Comments | Back to Top