Cardinal: stop this 'Frankenstein' evil

'This Bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. In some other European countries one could be jailed for doing what we intend to make legal. I can say that the government has no mandate for these changes:  they were not in any election manifesto, nor do they enjoy widespread public support. The opposite has indeed taken place – the time allowed for debate in Parliament and indeed in the country at large has been shockingly short. One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.'

Read on for the full Easter Day sermon at St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh to be delivered by Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Our news report is here.

Just one week ago I began our Palm Sunday liturgy with the following words:

“For five weeks of Lent we have been preparing, by works of charity and self sacrifice, for the celebration of Our Lord’s Pascal Mystery”.

Today Easter Day we celebrate the culmination of that Easter mystery – that culmination in which we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  Our celebrations continue during the fifty days of Easter time leading to the great feast of Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles – and this Easter time our fifty days includes all of the month of April.

At Easter and during these fifty days of Easter time we think with great joy of that glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; and we remember once more that during the first Easter time Christ clarified and confirmed for his followers an essential aspect of their Christian vocation. They were to be a missionary people: “Go out to the whole world and proclaim the Good News to all creation! “

I think with you today first of all on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ himself.

A particular poignancy was brought to our commemorations this Easter in our Cathedral. News was brought to us some two weeks before that Father David the father figure of this Cathedral Parish had died suddenly and tragically in Barcelona in Spain. It was on the weekend of Palm Sunday that his remains were brought here to our Cathedral and remained until noon on the Monday of Holy Week when our solemn liturgy for the dead was celebrated and followed by his burial in the cemetery in Culross near Oakley in Fife.

Obviously there was much grieving here in our Cathedral Parish and indeed throughout our diocese and all of Scotland as people remembered this gifted young man who seemed to have the ability to relate in a very easy and positive way with all with whom he came in contact.

However our liturgies of Holy Week reminded us of how natural everything had been in David’s life and death. Born as one of a large family with a devoted mother and father he answered the call of God to the Priesthood and lived out that call to the full until his death in Barcelona. The day following his funeral, on the Tuesday of Holy Week, the priests of our Archdiocese gathered to renew our own personal commitment to service – all having in mind, I am sure, that service rendered by Father David and our own ongoing commitment to serve until the Lord calls us to himself.

One might say that when thinking of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ we realise that is what our own Christianity is all about. Brought into the world by the love of two devoted parents, raised to adulthood in our own families, every action is indeed in someway or another a preparation for our new life in Christ.

I think that the words used in many European countries to describe a death, sum up very beautifully our basic Christian belief: “He has gone to the home of the Father!”

At this time as well as thinking of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are asked to consider again what I have described as the “essential aspect of a Christian vocation – namely to be a missionary people”.  I think that there is a greater need than ever before for each and every Christian to be aware of that call at this present time.

So many people are worried about the future – the possibility of banks failing; the increased cost of living with regard to food, petrol and many of those things which we find essential; our concerns about climate change and global warming; our increasing worries about the dangers of nuclear disaster.

But I think that a fundamental concern of all of our people at this present time and one which we ourselves as Christians must take very seriously is that concerning the future of human life itself.

The beliefs which we have previously held, and the standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2000 years are being challenged at this present time in ways in which they have never been challenged before!

The norm has always been that children have been born as the result of the love of man and woman in the unity of a marriage. That belief has of course long been challenged. However I believe that a greater challenge than that even faces us – the possibility now facing our country is that animal – human embryos be produced with the excuse that perhaps certain diseases might find a cure from these resulting embryos.

What I am speaking of is the process whereby scientists create an embryo containing a mixture of animal and human genetic material. If I were preaching this homily in France, Germany, Italy, Canada or Australia I would be commending the government for rightly banning such grotesque procedures.

However here in Great Britain I am forced to condemn our government for not only permitting but encouraging such hideous practices.

Our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has given the Government’s support to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which, more comprehensively, attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular Bill.

With full might of government endorsement, Gordon Brown is promoting a Bill that will allow the creation of animal – human hybrid embryos. He is promoting a Bill which will add to the 2.2 million human embryos already destroyed or experimented upon. He is promoting a Bill allowing scientists to create babies whose sole purpose will be to provide, without consent of anyone, parts of their organs or tissues. He is promoting a Bill which will sanction the raiding of dead peoples tissue to manufacture yet more embryos for experimentation. He is promoting a Bill which denies that a child has a biological father, allows tampering with birth certificates, removing biological parents, and inserting someone altogether different. And this Bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws.

Further it seems that Labour MPs are not to be allowed a free vote on this Bill and consequently are denied the right to vote according to their conscience – a right which all other political parties have allowed.

This Bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. In some other European countries one could be jailed for doing what we intend to make legal. I can say that the government has no mandate for these changes:  they were not in any election manifesto, nor do they enjoy widespread public support. The opposite has indeed taken place – the time allowed for debate in Parliament and indeed in the country at large has been shockingly short. One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.

Many excuses are being made for this present legislation, particularly that cures will soon be found for various diseases which afflict mankind through this legislation. Rather the opposite seems to be the case when cells required for ongoing investigation into cures through medical science can take place through cells obtained in other ways from human bodies and certainly not through the creation of animal – human embryos.

I contend that matters of such concern to the peoples of our countries should not be left quite simply to a vote by members of Parliament. Along with my colleagues in England and Wales and my brother Bishops here in Scotland I would maintain that the establishment of a single permanent statutory national bioethics commission is something which would indeed bring considerable benefits. As I indicated recently in a letter to the Prime Minister: “This would appear to be the only way that the issues raised by the swiftly developing biotechnology industry can be adequately discussed and weighed up in a body which engages with public concerns and informs the government and parliament on matters which will continue to raise such unimagined and complex ethical questions”.

Our voice must be heard and that voice must be listened to especially by the members of Parliament who will soon vote on this issue in the House of Commons. Sadly many members of Parliament do not seem concerned – or rather are in a certain ignorance of what is going to happen. In January of this year our Catholic Parliamentary Office wrote to all of Scotland’s 59 members of Parliament asking them how they intended to vote. As of today only 9 have bothered to reply. Over three weeks ago Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to allow all his MPs a free vote – as of today he has not even had an acknowledgement!

Our Church, and I personally, have, I think, done all the ‘right things’.
We have responded to the consultation document; we have sent letters to all of Scotland’s Members of Parliament; we have written to the Prime Minister; we are speaking publicly about what is going on in our name and in our country.  Further, I recently signed a letter with other Church Leaders which concluded:  “This Bill goes against what most people, Christian or not, reckon is common sense.  The idea of mixing human and animal genes is not just evil.  It’s crazy!”.

Today as we celebrate in the resurrection the triumph of life over death I urge you to ensure that life continues to triumph over these deathly proposals. I know that many of you have already made your views known to your members of Parliament. I ask you to continue to do that.

Being a Christian and acting as a Christian must be one and the same thing.
Gathered here on this Easter Day we realise that we are indeed followers of Jesus Christ and with that comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is as I have indicated to be “missionary”. May God indeed help us all to be missionary at this present time and to hand on the saving message of Jesus Christ in a world which does not seem prepared to receive it.

Comments

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

It's not the business of Religion to dictate to government, especially to a democratic one.

My private opinion is that I feel squeamish about embryo experiments. It's similar to finding a couple of adolescents experimenting in their parents' basements as to how to create a girl with three breasts. It's weird but none of my concern.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The Cardinal is the leader of a free church in Scotland. In a democratic society he has every right to speak both for himself and for the community which he represents. And he is a far more impressive speaker than the dreary Gordon Brown, who only seems to come to life when abstracting money from our pockets.

[andrew holden]

This is hardly religion trying to dictate to government. This is a group with a particular view expressing that view in a free and democratic society. A Cardinal has every right to represent the views of his church and his people - particularly when, as in this case, he feels the Government is pursuing an evil course without due regard to the democratic process. In point of fact it looks as if it is the government that is actually trying to dictate and ignore democracy.

Personally, even as a Christian, I think that both he and the majority are actually wrong on this issue but he has every right to argue his case and to ask that proper democratic debate is allowed. Only then can we have a sensible understanding of the issues and make a decision on how much research should be allowed and how far it needs to be regulated. Experimenting in the name of some sort of weird and perverted science is hardly a private matter which should go unmonitored and unregulated.

[Peter Farrington]

It is profoundly undemocratic to suggest that any member of a democracy, especially one representing a constituency in that democracy, should not perfectly entitled to speak for himself and his constituency.

None of this science is taking place with my approval. I never voted for it. I will support all who speak against it. That is my democratic right.

To suggest that science should be exempt from any moral oversight is frankly frightening. What is done in our names in our democracy is something to do with all of us.

[Rick Beekman]

Dr. Alan Marsh;

With all due respect to your viewpoint. My Question to you is this; The RCC Presents itself as a Christian Church correct Sir?

Christians Do not Rebel..Demonstrate..or meddle in the affairs of Nations.
True..He has the right to speak his mind on any issue he chooses as free speech.

It's when it gets to be "Church Policy" Trying to tell other Nations how to do this or that is the real Problem.

If you will read any Bible You will clearly see; (1) Jesus wants people to hear his Gospel not anybody Else's Gospel including the Pope..Cardinal...Right on down the line.
(2) Jesus never interferred with the Roman Government or Any Government.
Jesus even stated Dr. Marsh; "Anyone caught up in the affairs of this life is not worthy of me."
Christians let Jesus through fervert prayer handle all situations. Let the Good Cardinal go read a Bible...

[George Parr]

So Dr Marsh's contribution to the debate, in its early stages on this thread, is to compare the rhetorical capabilities of a cardinal with the Prime Minister, which somehow he relates to taxation!

The ethics of this Bill do seem far from clear, along with a lack of published information surrounding proper assessment of the degrees of scientific need, and the realistic likelihood of alleged benefits. The matter is clearly a cause for concern. However, what we really do not require is the predictable half-baked account put forward by an outfit such as the apparently scientifically omniscient Catholic Church.

We are told that the Bill proposes legislation leading to forms of research which might eradicate HIV Aids and numerous other illnesses, but this is challenged by those who say that science can already provide ways of furthering research without animal/human embryo experimentation. The Cardinal's impassioned speech inflames the situation for those prepared to live in fear of an impending scientific nightmare, but does little to elucidate the issue in a balanced manner.

So what percentage of the Catholic Church's concerns relate to 'a monstrous attack on human rights', a topic that has not concerned it overly in the past, and how much are they based upon religious concepts of evil and vague secular threats against sacrosanct notions of creation? I read of no evidence which suggests that scientists are preparing to 'create babies' for experiment.

Presumably then, should the legislation be passed, Catholics will speedily choose to opt out of having life-saving treatment resulting from any futuristic science they are told is sinful and were urged en masse not to support? And since religious groups historically have had a lot to say over medical ethics generally e.g. Jehova's Witnesses to name but one, the Cardinal follows the grand tradition of political interference by seeking to dictate policy affecting all, but from his own particular faith position.

It is not difficult to decide whether he is loudly expressing an opinion or, from his high-profile position of influence, dictating indelible messages to the millions who listen to him.

[Mike Homfray]

More of the usual tosh from religionism.

The moral position is to support research which may be of huge benefit to many.

The Church have no idea at all of morality. I trust enough people with good sense will recognise this. They have no right to dictate their beliefs and impose them upon others.

Religion should be kept firmly within the private sphere. Thankfully, that is clearly what most people think and the Romanists are as ever, doing their very best to ensure that case is ever more strongly made.

[nick]

The Roman Catholic church's vigorous opposition to any scientific advance from Galileo forwards is exactly the same as the moslem fundamentalists position regarding sharia law.

They both wish to preserve an outdated medieval belief system and social system at any price.

Fortunately catholicism has managed to effectively remove itself from any influence in the scientific community by its blinkered and reactionary stance.

[Robert Ian Williams]

I only wish we had a Cardinal of his ilk and conviction leading the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

[kate b]

The fact that everyone does feel squeamish about this shows that, inherently everyone feels it is wrong.

At last there is a Christian leader, who will voice openly the letters that have been ignored by the government representing our 'democracy'.

The Biblical viewpoint is that there are perpetual, moral imperatives; there are blessings for following them and curses for not, Deuteronomy 4ish. This imperative is in Genesis 1. The fall depicts this clearly, satan challenges God's imperative - Adam and Eve are convinced......because of the thought they would "be like God" and this HFEA directive is the same, they want to "be like God". Mixing of unlike Kinds is an abomination and desecrates the sanctity of human life (human life initially contains the Spirit of God, animals don't). It is irrelevant that the research may help degenerative diseases, stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord from delivered babies. The only problem is that all actions have consequences, as there is no-one to police the HFEA but the HFEA itself, it will be its own spokesperson.

I think I know which way this one is going to go already.

[Stephen Clark]

I agree with Dr Marsh that the good Cardinal should be allowedto speak (very articulately it seems to me) in order to express his concerns.
Dr Appel is naive if he thinks allowing anyone permission to experiment to do absolutely anything is no one's business but their own. I wonder if the victims of thalidomide would agree.
It is a good thing, it seems to me, for churches to precipitate and expect debate in these areas. The only thing worse than difficult debates, is not to debate at all!

[Christopher]

But Alan, would you extend his right to speak for himself and his community to the use of threats of excommunication, barring from the sacraments and even menacing with hell and damnation to those Catholic MPs who dare to vote against the cardinal's wishes? There comes a point, doesn't there, when he might begin to use his powerful position to coerce and intimidate? Is that moral? Wouldn't it be an abuse of the democratic process? I do not want unelected bishops using this special kind of pressure against our elected MPs.

[andrew holden]

Everyone in the House of Lords is unelected. Singling the Bishops out for criticism is mere prejudice. I'd certainly like to see major reform in the Lords but I don't actually want another elected house full of the sort of professional politicians we have in the other place! So, until we have a radical overhall of the system leave the Bishops to do their job and argue for a higher moral authority in public life.

As we do actually live in a democratic society I value hearing the opinions of different groups and don't believe in trying to shout them down. If the Cardinal is wrong on this (as I actually think he is) then engage with the issues in debate and argue for the alternatives.

I completely reject the illiberal nonsense that religious people have no right to be part of any political debate.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I am delighted to discover that Mr Parr is not only an eminent political scholar and rhetorician, but also a highly qualified scientist! We are indeed blessed to have contributors of such polymathic majesty on this blog!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Christopher, people in the blog world quite routinely and wrongly condemn the RC Church for failing to speak out against evil in pre-war Germany, despite the courageous efforts of many church leaders to oppose what was happening, many of whom paid with their lives.

Now, when a Cardinal speaks out against the abuse of life by those who think science should be exempt from moral analysis, he is accused of abusing "the democratic process"!

A democracy which cannot tolerate diversity of opinion is not worth having: for it is not a democracy at all.

[Mike Homfray]

Everyone doesn't feel 'squeamish' about this, Kate. Just those who believe tomfool nonsense about 'creation' and gods written in story books.

[andrew holden]

"It is not difficult to decide whether he is loudly expressing an opinion or, from his high-profile position of influence, dictating indelible messages to the millions who listen to him."

George you appear to have such an inflated perception of the influence of religious leaders that it might even be called a phobia. British Roman Catholics are renowned for ignoring the 'advice' of their clerics when it suits them - or when they consider them to be out of touch.

There are serious issues here involving the responsibility of those conducting scientific research that need debating fully. If the Cardinal's view is rejected then most catholics are able to make up their own minds about what they should do. It's a strange thing, religion and often sets people free to follow the dictates of their own conscience rather than slavishly following what the prelates decree - I find that is no longer just a Protestant view.

[emanuel appel]

A letter from America

Dear All,

Everyone has the right of free speech and petitioning government, even Catholics :)

No one is in favor of clueless , weird science a la Dr. Frankenstein. However, has anyone thought about enforcement?

Are we going to have "Science Storm Troopers" barging into laboratories? I can see taking Crick and Watson, pushing them against the wall in the best New York Police Dept. fashion and telling them "spread your legs m----f---kr".

If no human being is used or harmed ( a group of cells called a foetus in biology is not a human being), I see no need for government interference in the laboratory.

Public funding is another matter. The British taxpayer has every right to object or approve as to how his taxes are spent.

[Pat Roberts]

To be consistent, those who oppose the Church's right to speak out or lobby government on an acute matter of conscious should also deny Greenpeace, Anti-Airport, Anti-War, Anti-Hunting etc groups the same right. Presumably the long-running anti-slavery movement were also getting a bit above themselves in trying to urge their policies on a "democratically elected" government ...?

[George Parr]

Oh 'hollow, hollow' Alan Marsh! The usual sarcasm re-emerges only rivalled by pomposity!

There must be a place for fitting in the usual wagonload of tortuous and abstruse theological nonsense here surely...!!

[andrew holden]

"Everyone doesn't feel 'squeamish' about this..... Just those who believe tomfool nonsense about 'creation' and gods written in story books."

Whilst religionists may be in the forefront of the opposition to stuff like this I don't see any reason why a secular humanist might not share similar concerns. On 'pro-life' issues I've often actually wondered why those who think this life is all one gets are not sternly ant-abortion and those who believe in an afterlife perhaps less so.

Anyway, this believer is NOT against this sort of research - though I do think public debate and some degree of regulation is important.

[Peter Farrington]

"If no human being is used or harmed ( a group of cells called a foetus in biology is not a human being), I see no need for government interference in the laboratory."

This is not an argument, it is an opinion. And therefore is liable to contradiction in a democracy and in any free society. This is what New Labour are indeed seeking to prevent.

Personally, I think that from the moment of conception there is a human life and that therefore the circumstances surrounding the creation of such life are entirely and especially worthy of the strictest regulation.

I can think of no pregnant woman I have ever known who has not considered that the least developed embryo is not entirely a human person and her child. Others may disagree, but the fact that there is such disagreement requires debate not the presumption that some scientists and some politicians know best.

[Alistair]

Of course the Cardinal can speak out. What should decide the argument about the Bill, however, should be the quality of the arguments for or against it. If the Cardinal is putting pressure on democraticaly elected MPs to vote as instructed by him, then the quality of the argument is being trumped by the quality of access to power.

Last time I looked, Ruth Kelly was MP for Bolton West, not Vatican East.

[andrew holden]

Personally I'm all for a fully free vote on this issue. That means that Catholic MPs are free to follow their conscience - not the dictates of the Prime Minister OR the dictates of the Roman Catholic Prelates.

[Dr M. B. Sparke]

I heard Keith O'Brien in his radio four interview invoke 'hybrid babies'; a gross misrepresentation of a l4 day embryo. I am surprised that this has not caused more comment.The blog of his proposed sermon contains other serious misrepresentions. I would not like to have this Cardinal's conscience. Prof Winston is quite right.

[andrew holden]

That "the least developed embryo is not entirely a human person" is exactly the point (though I appreciate you were actually trying to suggest the opposite). Aquinas recognised that it was ensoulment or the acquisition of sentience that was the key point in the development of a foetus not conception.

There are pretty good reasons for recognising that up until the cerebral cortex is much more fully devloped the embryo should be considered to be a 'potential' human being. That wouldn't, of course, support widespread abortion up to 28 weeks - but personally I think that except in cases of genuine medical necessity babies should have in utero protection long before that date.

I don't disagree that regulation of all these areas is very important - but regulation is not the same as banning all such research at all.

[Roger]

Too many claims that 'everyone' think this or that! Little or no real logic, science or proof - just lots of uninformed opinion!

[George Parr]

Having drowned my post in sarcasm Alan Marsh, I am heartened by recent comments from Dr Sparkes, Professor Winston and others outside of the blog. I am clearly not alone in thinking that the Cardinal's unfocussed, emotive remarks over foetuses, together with other misrepresented evidence tailored to fit the bill, puts this Catholic scientific analysis into the 'half-baked' category.

If this is the case, the question remains whether or not high-profile church leaders should interfere politically but from a specific doctrinal position in matters affecting everyone. Pressurising elected MPs, some Cabinet Ministers, through faith-driven guilt is wholly presumptious and undemocratic.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Geo. Parr and all,

There are 52 Sundays and 52 topics to use on the congregation.

You'd think that the violence, the lack of self control, the attack seen on civil society by undisicplined people or the Moslems would concern the prelate.

Now, what is of supreme importance to me is the rampant consumption of pig products throughout the UK, whether in pubs, restaurants, or private homes. If I were the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, that is what I'd be buttonholing the PM and the Queen about. I see no reason why consumption could not be placed with cannabis or cocaine as a jailable offense.

Anyone else have an activity to ban or regulate?

[andrew holden]

The Cardinals may come to regret their contribiution to this debate. It has highlighted an important matter for public debate (surely a good thing?) but it really doesn't look as if they are going to win the debate.

I agree that it is important that religious contributions are heard and that MPs should be allowed to have a free vote according to their conscience - which means in this case that RC MPs should not be pressurised by their church to vote according to the Cardinal's scruples. It seems to me though that some Churches go too far down the line of expecting their MPs to follow the official line on certain issues. If MPs are to be allowed to have a free vote to follow their conscience then they should not face discipline (eg excomunication) if they choose not to vote along Roman Catholic lines.

This is less of a problem for members of churches which give much more recognition to the importance of individual conscience over against the official line.

[Tony Francis]

Aquinas taught the embryo had a "vegetative" soul. He based this on Aristotle. He also taught that the soul, like the body, could be "in potentiality". This, too was based on Aristotle. Aquinas had no understanding of the physiology of "conception". Semen was placed in the female in a manner similar to planting a seed in a garden. I guess what I don't understand is the squeamishness of the atheists. If you believe there is no such thing as a soul, why mess around with stem cells? Why not grow babies and harvest them before 24 or 28 weeks for their organs? No one would be hurt in the process, and some might be helped. The women growing the organs could be paid for their effort.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I have yet to see any convincing reason put forward for this legislation, when its potential for achieving anything useful has not been demonstrated, although its expense and complexity is undoubted. Most countries have already abandoned it for more effective forms of stem cell research.

I can however see why Lord Winston and others with links to the highly lucrative world of drug production and private medicine should wish to abuse human life in any way possible if it might mean another opportunity to make substantial profits at the expense of taxpayers and patients. Surely these proponents of the legislation should be required to declare an interest when speaking publicly?

I have a proposal which could save hundreds of thousands of lives for the same cost as this unethical research: spend the money on medical aid to the third world. When every one of the world's children has access to a decent standard of medicine, that will be the time to spend money on speculative "rocket science" which can only ever benefit a few.

Winston, Darzi and others are presumably accustomed already to allocating NHS resources on a cost- effectiveness basis. The same principle should apply here. First of all save the lives of children who are dying every day from easily treatable diseases.

[andrew holden]

"Anyone else have an activity to ban or regulate?"

People blogging pompous 'letters from America'.......

[andrew holden]

Tony, I'm not an atheist but even if I was I would find the idea of harvesting organs from aborted babies completely unacceptable.

My horror is nothing to do with any idea of a soul but simply that these babies are human beings in a way which embryos are not. Such a horror would surely be shared by most people atheist or not.

[George Parr]

Mr Marsh introduces a different, albeit worthy, issue into the debate; the plight of those suffering from treatable diseases.

I have been pilloried by Mr Appel and others for daring to criticise western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention reduced to pariah status for suggesting that the proliferation of arms is immoral, uncivilised and unnecessary. (Mr Appel thinks that nations arming themselves to the teeth is 'natural' and desirable.) Perhaps the trillions of dollars, a sizeable percentage of America's economy, together with the billions spent by the U.K. might be used to fund Mr Marsh's proposal, not to mention to achieve the by-product of giving the bellicose ingrown souls of our lords and masters an outing.

However, to further Mr Marsh's post perhaps he could tell us to what extent Robert Winston and others are involved in making 'substantial profits' out of the research they support, and also in what ways the science is unproven or speculative.
Since a coalition of over 300 medical charities and groups have urged support for this bill, we must assume that the polymathiclastic Mr Marsh has ethical or scientific information unbeknown to them, particularly as he gloomily predicts that no good will come of it whatsoever.

I find it curious that somehow he knows mystically that the research will benefit only a few. Is he saying that 'the few' comprises Robert Winston et al? Or does he mean that the 'substantial profits' will be wreaked out of an apparently small amount of patients, for whom incurable diseases might become a thing of the past?

Perhaps we can add his name to the list of Catholics who, to prevent charges of hypocrisy, will of course turn down any excellent new treatment resulting from practices sanctioned by the bill?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I will try to explain it simply for the sake of Mr Parr!

As the Scottish Cardinal has pointed out, what the government is proposing is regarded with horror in many countries, and would lead to prosecution in some.

The Hansard report of the Lords' debate on the bill shows Lord Darzi and others struggling and failing to mask the implications of what they seek by use of absurdly coined cod-medical terminology, because they know that the truth is unacceptable in plain English.

Nor could they explain to the Lords why it is that this technology is already widely discredited in many countries, which have chosen to pursue effective research based on stem cells provided by the candidate for treatment, rather than the speculative methods in which they wish to indulge.

Of course charities linked to particular diseases wish to see a cure, but they are pinning their hopes on an unproven and unethical methodology. They would do better to look to stem cell research of a kind which does promise and is delivering results.

The research establishment hopes to gain merely by obtaining licence and funding for the research. And their supporters hope that it will lead to unforeseen spin-offs which can be commercially exploited for great gain by the sponsoring drug companies.

It might result in more gongs and prizes for the likes of Darzi and Winston and provide them and their kind with yet more exclusive clinics and therapies, offering phenomenally expensive treatment to a very few who have the means to pay, or are fortunate enough to live near to prestigious London clinics.

If you want to know how well Robert Winston has done out of medicine I can only suggest you take a look at his entry in the Lords' register of interests.

At the same time as the New Labour elite is promoting this prestige project as a government bill from which no dissent will be permitted on grounds of conscience, children are dying in great numbers every day for lack of basic medical care costing pennies to provide. There is dire poverty just hundreds of miles from London in mainland Europe, let alone the third world.

Even in the unlikely event that creating hybrid humans for research results in a cure for anything, what is certain is that it will not be made available to anyone in the poor nations - except for their leaders, spending the aid budgets generously provided by Gordon and safely stashed in Swiss or Luxembourg bank accounts. (Governments do like to look after their own kind).

Just because it can be done does not mean that it must be done or can be done ethically, or that it will lead to a cure for anything.

And if the finances are available then it is immoral to deny healing to the many in poor countries so that a London politburo and its clients may benefit.

On one thing I do agree with Mr Parr. The astronomical cost of war could be spent to far better effect in this world. I only wish the same principle could be applied to the cost of medicine.

[J Pearce]

It would be more acceptable that while the good Cardinal exercised his rights to free speech, the RCC wasn't such a bunch of anti-freedom, anti-progress Luddites. It seems that any scientific advance is met with resistance by the Church, regardless of the facts.

Ah, the facts. Such a problem for the RCC, it seems. Lets look at what the Cardinal has to say…

"With full might of government endorsement..."

Untrue. There are several Catholics in the Cabinet who apparently have private doubts AND the Govt is apparently considering withdrawing the whip. The RCC is pushing for an interesting precedent - MP's to vote "with their conscience". Except that the RCC will no doubt expect Catholic MP's to vote with their "religious conscience". So - what the RCC is actually pushing for, is that all Catholic MP's should vote in-line with RCC dogma.

Al-righty. Free will, anyone?

"He is promoting a Bill allowing scientists to create babies whose sole purpose will be to provide, without consent of anyone, parts of their organs or tissues."

Uh, this is also untrue. For a start, no embryo (err…which is not a baby, especially in the emotive terms the Cardinal is employing) can be kept alive for more than two weeks. Therefore, it will not be able to contribute "organs" of any kind - because they won't have developed yet. Like - does this man actually understand any basic biology whatsoever?

"And this Bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws."

Ooh…lets hit all the Catholic red alert buttons, shall we? We just HAVE to get a mention of abortion in their somewhere, even if it is completely unrelated!

So, basically, here we have the classic religious reactionary codswallop, the usual posturing and manipulating of the democratic process, just to flex political muscles, stir up the usual religious paranoia and make them feel like they have something to contribute, when they actually manage to contribute jack all these days.

Apparently, Bishop Tom Wright delivered an even more reactionary sermon on this subject. Nice to see that friendly Protestant/Catholic rivalry still at work in this day and age.

And lets play a hypothetical guessing game. Lets just say, ten years from now, the Bill was passed and as a result, new and revolutionary genetic techniques have led to a range of targetted therapies for various debilitating conditions. Do you think the good Cardinal, suffering from the advanced form of dementia he's demonstrated this Easter, is going to refuse treatment on religious grounds? Errr…I don't think so...

[J Pearce]

To answer Tony Francis:

You can't "grow" babies from stem cells. Once the embryo reaches a certain size, it begins to develop internal organs and the biology becomes intractably complex. I am not aware of any technology which can support the development of a fertilised embryo to the physical age of 24 weeks, outside of the womb.

Stem cells for organ development are different - a single organ, isolated from interaction from other organs in the body, is much simpler to support.

Babies are viable outside of the womb from ~24 weeks (dependent on individual circumstances). Even us "spiritually bankrupt" secular atheists and agnostics have moral issues with "harvesting" organs from viable human beings.

However, I was not aware that the current Bill was even proposing such latitude. The problem is that religious representatives, far from "contributing" to the debate, are poisoning it with infantile horror stories and complete untruths (aren't there religious injunctions against lying?) - deliberately manufacturing unnecessary moral panics in the more "unenlightened" sections of the public.

It is this deployment of crass religious propoganda, which justifies calls for religious leaders to just "shut the **** up", when addressing issues of import to society. Until the supposedly enlightened religious hierarchy start behaving in a manner which befits their office, perhaps it is better they stay removed from any such debates?

[Tony Francis]

Andrew Holden: In the US, we have aborted 15% of the population for purposes of birth control. What is more repugnant: harvesting babies for organs, or simply flushing the remains down the toilet?

[George Parr]

Mr Marsh, I know already of Lord Winston's register of interests and can confirm that he is patron of nine voluntary organisations, an office holder in 14 voluntary organisations. His non-remunerative consultancies are mainly research based and he is a director of a media company. He is remunerated for advising the Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

I have invited him to comment upon links with drug companies, which he may or may not choose to do.

[andrew holden]

Tony, why choose? They are both bad things to do? Sounds like you are really proud of your country....

Anyway, this bill is not about doing bad things to babies - its about hybrid embryos which are clearly NOT human and certainly not viable as any sort of organism.

[Tony Francis]

J Pearce, what 24 week old fetus is viable? What newborn baby is viable without significant input from adults? What three or six year old is viable? Your arguments are void of any meaning. As I wrote before, you atheists are too squeamish to accept your own dogma.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

I'm very flattered that some of you hold on to my dictums with such tenacity that you are able to cite them back to me after many weeks. How sensitive ! The reverse is not true.

You can argue back and forth but the main issue is money, govt interference in the scientific process, and money again.

Let me ask the most rabid "ultramontane" : How are you going to keep track of what Dr. Frankenstein concocts in his lab?

I was amazed to read other columnists treat with horror the subject of men in white coats putting together monsters in the glass beaker. We simply don't know where this process will take us to . Therefore, step back and let the experts work and evaluate.

I do object to a couple of things that have nothing to do with religion - party discipline and funding.

Party Discipline.
The American Constitution was crafted by British subjects that were all too familiar with Westminster in 1781. They disliked very much cracking the Govt Whip. Therefore , all representatives to our legislature are kings within their district.

You have to persuade them, ask their better nature to support a bill but you can't force them. The ultimate decison maker over whether they serve or not is the local voter, not George Bush. The most staunch Republican party representative in Congress can tell Geo Bush, a Cardinal or Methodist Minister to take a hike on any issue.

Funding - it is outrageous for the British taxpayer to fund a private hobby horse , from the BBC to foetus research. If the boys in the white coats want to play with cells, let them raise the money by passing the hat around or getting U-2 to put on a concert.

[Jenny]

THe Catholic Church is admirable for consistently opposing this and other wrongs in society. Where is a shred of dignity to be found in such experimentation? One does not even need the good CArdinal to explain why this is intrinsically wrong.

[Andrew Holden]

"It is this deployment of crass religious propoganda, which justifies calls for religious leaders to just "shut the **** up"... perhaps it is better they stay removed from any such debates?"

Amazing - so between the two of you it isn't about who has got the right arguments but who can shout the loudest and drown out the other! I think you deserve each other! Personally I'd rather allow anyone to speak and listen to the quality of the debate.

In this case I have to say that the Cardinal hasn't acquited himself well - but that's no reason to try and stop him speaking.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

There are some fascinating insights into Labour's financial links to the bioscience industry to be found at:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367702-details/Donor:+I+wouldn't+have+lent+Labour+cash+if+I'd+known+there+would+be+an+investigation/article.do

"A tycoon arrested in the "cash-for-peerages" probe today hit out at police and the Labour Party.
Sir Christopher Evans, a multimillionaire investor in stem cell research, said he was "extremely shocked and dismayed" to be arrested and insisted he had nothing to hide.

But his arrest throws the spotlight on Tony Blair's support for the industry. As a leading investor, Sir Christopher stands to make fortunes if discoveries about stem cells - the body's building blocks with the potential to become anything from brain to bone, muscle or skin - take the lead in medical science. Sir Christopher today appeared to be as angry with Labour as he was with the police.

Sir Christopher loaned Labour £1million between January and May last year. At the same time, in March last year, he was appointed to the UK Stem Cell Initiative, a body set up by Mr Blair and Gordon Brown to advise the Government on new medical technologies.

Later Mr Brown and Mr Blair were named as backers of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, a charity set up by Sir Christopher to fund research into the area.

Sir Christopher has been a donor to Labour since the Nineties and was knighted in 2001. In 1995 he was awarded the OBE for services to bioscience. His company has recently been at the centre of a £2.5million fraud probe, though he denies any wrongdoing.

Last February he urged the Government to invest £100 million in stem cell research or risk losing Britain's position as a world leader in the field. Nine months later, the Chancellor announced in his pre-budget report that he was doubling support to £100 million."

[Athanasius of Alexandria]

If you call yourself a Communist (say), you might seek the guidance of other, more eminent Communists on how you ought to act in a certain situation, in order to remain true to the logical outworking of the principles you espouse.

If you call yourself a Catholic, you might welcome the spiritual and moral guidance of a Cardinal in order to work out how you ought to act (or vote) in a certain situation based on the principles in which you believe.

I find it hard to see, in either case, how the consciences of MPs are being violated by the, apparently, horrifyingly repressive act of telling people what they ought to do if they want to remain true to what they say they believe. Shurely, informing yourself about the consequences, in one sphere, of an action you take in another sphere is what "following your conscience" means?

[J Pearce]

Tony Francis:

You appear to have made the same kind of mistake that the Cardinal is guilty of - blundering into a debate armed only with emotional dogma and no firm understanding of the scientific facts.

The term "viable" refers to whether the foetus is capable of being artificially supported outside the womb and retaining a strong statistical probablility of maturing to term and then further. Your intemperate assertions have no bearing on the medical defintions I have employed, hence deserve no further comment as they are meaningless.

As I stated before, "atheists" and others not hypnotised by RC dogma are equally capable of moral judgements. You seem to have decided to drag that hoary old favourite abortion into the argument (because it appears that the religious are too stupid to separate the issues surrounding the current Bill and abortion? Who knows…). I support abortion. But I also support the implemetation of an age limit, after which an abortion cannot legally be allowed. 12 weeks seems appropriate.

This kind of thinking is known as "pragmatism". It is an attempt to rationalise the needs of one group of people with prevailing social mores and the sanctity of life. Unfortunately, "rational" is not a term I readily associate with religious belief.

[J Pearce]

Andrew:

I support the right of the Cardinal to make public comment regarding this debate about the Bill. I don't support his attitude of poisoning the debate with baseless assertions, distortions, political manipulation and emotive haranguing. Like I said before, if he made reasoned judgements based on the substance of the proposals, there wouldn't be such an outcry. He didn't - he stomped his metaphorical feet in a childish tantrum. It was more of a political stunt than anything else.

The sum total of his input was therefore less than zero. So my opinion is, why didn't he just keep his fatuous mouth shut, for all the good it did?

[George Parr]

Alan, what's this got to do with Lord Winston, guilt by association?

Your 'no smoke without fire' approach might or might not apply, and it certainly does not stand up as evidence. I agree that sometimes there seems to be a fine line between corruption and properly funded research. But on the one hand some people take heart and fully expect to benefit medically from it, whilst on the other an issue arises raised by those who are prepared to let companies or institutions pay for research, but denigrate them when furthering it in a system based on an open market becomes financially viable.

Current opposition from the faithful however is based on neither premise, but centres on loose or erroneous interpretations of what science proposes, in any case deeming it as morally inappropriate. There is, nevertheless, a rabid willingness to assume the very worst, in order to support their case. Enter Alan Marsh quoting, so far I believe, unproved allegations.

To imply that all levels of government, medical companies, charities, financiers, the aristocracy and research scientists are somehow 'all in it together', ranks with conspiracy theories of the worst kind, surely?

[Tom Jackson]

"Amazing - so between the two of you it isn't about who has got the right arguments but who can shout the loudest and drown out the other! I think you deserve each other!"

Andrew, I came to this conclusion long ago.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

Your revelations amount to "Labour lobbied by Bioscience sector. It worked. Donor knighted as a result". Hardly shock news, given Labour's penchant for rewarding its financiers, is it?

I suppose in your eyes, its perfectly acceptable for religious leaders and groups to lobby the Government to quash laws which promote equality of treatment in the land and to blackmail members of Cabinet in public? But not acceptable for profit making R&D organisations to quietly lobby said MP's, organisations which actually benefit the economy, benefit medicine and add to the sum of human knowledge?

I don't like the potential for corruption in lobbying anymore palatable than you do, Alan, but give me science over a bunch of medievalist cranks any day of the week...

[Tony Francis]

As the recent posters have indicated, this is all about dipping into the public treasury to finance questionable science. No one has ever been barred from experimenting with sperm, egg, petri dishes, etc. This has been going on at medical schools and universities for more than a century. What is new is this marketing campaign: "We can cure grandma from senility if we can only get our gommers into federal treasury!" People fall for it, and vote themselves into higher tax brackets. California has promised several billion in state money, despite running a deficit. The profits, if any, will go to private individuals and corporations. Likely, grandma and her great great grandchildren will be long dead before any of this pans out.

[Martin]

JPearce's rant about Cardinal Keith O'Brien: " 'He is promoting a Bill allowing scientists to create babies whose sole purpose will be to provide, without consent of anyone, parts of their organs or tissues.'

Uh, this is also untrue. For a start, no embryo (err…which is not a baby, especially in the emotive terms the Cardinal is employing) can be kept alive for more than two weeks. Therefore, it will not be able to contribute "organs" of any kind - because they won't have developed yet. Like - does this man actually understand any basic biology whatsoever?"

It seems it is you who lacks any basic understanding of what's in this bill. The Cardinal here is referring to the creation of so-called "saviour siblings" which are screened as embryos to ensure their suitability as donors to sick children.

JPearce continues: " 'And this Bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws.'

Ooh…lets hit all the Catholic red alert buttons, shall we? We just HAVE to get a mention of abortion in their somewhere, even if it is completely unrelated!"

Everybody knows that an ammendment to facilitate abortion is expected to be introduced when the bill reaches the Commons. So the Cardinal is right to raise this issue.

Do your homework.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

J Pearce, you appear incapable of distinguishing between lobbying, and making substantial donations or "loans" to the Labour Party.

Perhaps that is where the Cardinal went wrong: perhaps in your "pragmatic" universe you would prefer the Catholic Church quietly to bankroll the Labour Party in order to influence policy?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

As for "adding to the sum of human knowledge", J Pearce, embryonic stem cell research has been taking place for a number of years without any proven therapy resulting - although certain Labour supporters appear to be doing well out of it.

By contrast the newer technology adopted in other countries, that of using donor cells from the intended recipient, has produced some 80 new therapies to date, with 350 clinical trials under way, and avoids the complications caused by tissue rejection which are inherent in the process which Gordon Brown is so energetically backing.

All of this was set out in the Lords debate, which was of course whipped to ensure a government victory. But it is worth reading the report of the debate, to see apologists for the government squirming to find any rationale for their proposals, and to justify the ghastly euphemisms chosen to cover up their intention to create human-animal hybrids.

And what of their logic? It was perfectly clear that if someone were to propose implanting such hybrids and attempt to bring them to full term, the government would have no moral objection to doing so, and such experiments will soon be proposed as a means to healing everything from old age to the common cold, if there is a profit to be made and taxed. There is no doubt that there are many who would have no problem creating such hybrids as a regular source of transplant organs, despite Lord Darzi's admission that such hybrids would be ‘at the human end of the spectrum’.

And we will no doubt see you, and Mr Carr and other "rationalists" defending such "progress" on columns like this in the name of finding a cure for whatever.

The tragedy in all this is the loss of the Hippocratic Oath which once served us so well as a society and enabled us to trust, rather than fear the medical profession.

Those who support this research, as with abortion and euthanasia, have ceased to be motivated so much by healing, as by raw utilitarian calculations of the value of a human body. Which seems not to be very much, especially if it can be disposed of unseen in the hospital incinerator.

[andrew holden]

"I support the right of the Cardinal to make public comment regarding this debate about the Bill. I don't support his attitude of poisoning the debate with baseless assertions, distortions, political manipulation and emotive haranguing."

Good - but that's the risk inherant in a society which has free speech. When such base arguments are produced the correct response is to tackle the arguments not try and ban the person from speaking.

Too often here we have the "lets shut these reactionary religious people up!" suggestion - often followed by the "who do these ignorant atheists think they are, what right have they got to speak about this?" counter-argument. What's worse this is often a cover-up to prevent engagement with some of the real arguments which may be present amidst the dross. This is the case with the Cardinal who neverthless had some important points hideen within the tripe.

We can all produce shallow, emotive and nonsensical arguments - if we are committed to the debate and the search for truth instead of merely shouting each other down then the best arguments should win through and the nonsense will be exposed!

[J Pearce]

Martin,

Under the new bill, it is proposed that the parents are the ones who will be able to create "saviour siblings". The Cardinal does not make any mention of that. His quote is: "He is promoting a Bill allowing scientists to create babies" [my emphasis].

The difference in semantics is huge. The Cardinal is essentially alluding to the "Frankensteins Monster" caricature of scientists, in order to deliberately manufacture moral outrage, when in truth, any decisions to create "savious siblings" will be done with full parental inclusion.

Which is a wholly different moral plane from the fetid medievalism that the Cardinal promotes.

To quote Dr Simon Fishel:

" I welcome this recommendation. None of the patients that seek this sort of health care option would do so unless it was pretty serious.

"Therefore to my mind it is a private family matter with the involvement of a registered clinician."

And my understanding is that the Bill is NOT being used to extend abortion laws. Precisely the opposite, in fact - the amendment is to reduce the current legal limit from 24 weeks and introduce mandatory counselling and enforced waiting times for women seeking abortions.

Does that sound like an extension to you, Martin?

Perhaps you need to do your homework, chum.

[J Pearce]

" J Pearce, you appear incapable of distinguishing between lobbying, and making substantial donations or "loans" to the Labour Party."

Alan, are you really so ignorant of the realpolitik of Government? "Lobbying" comes under various guises and has done so for centuries. It aint pretty, but then, neither is the business of running the country.

So - if its inevitably going to happen, I'd rather have the Govenrment lobbied by groups which contribute to society, not organisations dedicated to reducing human progress to the stone age.

I agree that embryonic stem cell research is an ethically "challenging" area, but I don't agree with this idea that it should be rejected outright just because a bunch of anti-science, anti-progress medievalists are getting on their morally pompous high horses about it. To my mind, science has by and large added to human progress and should be given a fair hearing - given that it has a track record of delivering therapies, cures etc.

On the flipside, the Catholic Church has a proven track record of dedicating itself to fighting human progress since its inception. A stance which has seen thousands, possibly millions, die pointless bloody, painful, deaths for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

So - give me Lord Winston over the Pope anyday.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Well, J Pearce, if the best ethical argument you can come up with is that corruption is somehow inevitable, I would rather listen to what the Cardinal has to say.

[Martin]

JPearce: I know how difficult it must be for you to accept having made a mistake,chum

[J Pearce]

Well, Alan, I hardly think the Church is a beacon of anti-corruption and transparency either, is it? The religious are hardly in a position to lecture anybody on ethics!

So which would you prefer - successful lobbying by an organisation which prevents scientific progress, or successful lobbying by a group which promotes scientific progress?

[J Pearce]

Martin,

Oh dear, is that a chip I see on a shoulder, chum? I fail to see my mistake. The Bill is proposing:

A) creation of human/hybrid embryos (not babies), which will NOT be used for "spare part" organs;
B) "saviour siblings" - babies created by parents - NOT scientists, as potential organ donors;
C) restrictions on current abortion law - an amendment which, as I correctly pointed out previously, is unrelated to the main thrust of the Bill.

What the good Cardinal has done is conflate the two issues (embryology and abortion) to generate moral panic; failed to recognise and express the substantive proposals to limit the availability of abortions; failed to understand or express the biology and procedures proposed by the Bill in regards to saviour siblings.

Instead, he just ranted off in utter ignorance. This was entirely a political calculation - to manipulate the political process. The fact that he is guilty of deliberate misrepresentation - i.e lying - exposes the pretences of the RCC for what it is, i.e. an organisation desperate to regain some vestige of political power so it can play games with peoples lives. Just like in the good old days.

[Rick Beekman]

J.Pearce;
Did'nt someone once asked you if you ever made a mistake?

And you told them; "Yes The ONE time I thought I Did".

[George Parr]

Mr Marsh, it was you who introduced various unsubstantiated claims of profiteering and corruption relating to Professor Winston and others, together with loose political comment. Moreover,'the good Cardinal' managed to fire off a tirade of what has been generally acknowledged as inappropriate rhetoric in an attempt to address misunderstood scientific issues theologically. But don't worry. Having attempted to demonstrate your own seemingly polymathic knowledge of politics, theology, medicine, bioscience, financial investment, pleading, logic and ethics, should you need to, and I hope you won't, you will still be able to receive treatment by going wholly unnoticed.

When major advances in medicine, brought about through the bill you are opposing become commonplace, and slip into mainstream medical practice, fortunately perhaps for you their origins will not be generally decipherable.

As for 'the good Cardinal' perhaps he might concentrate on improving the ethical position of the Catholic Church, not just through the usual device of erasing collective memory, but by replacing centuries of didactic, gendered elitism with an egalitarian approach, restricted for the sake of us all, to specific followers of Catholicism.

[J Pearce]

Rick, it seems the Cardinal isn't the only one with a slippery grasp of facts....a certain Bishop Wright has started making an ass of himself in public print over this debate. Bp Wright (another publicity hungry egotist under the delusion he's something special) recently waded in, claiming that a cadre of "militant atheists" were behind the proposed legislation and that they not only supported abortion, but also the mass murder of "surplus old people".

The columnist David Aaronovitch decided to challenge this point about "surplus old people", publicly asking Bp Wright to support this astonishing claim about atheists and euthanasia (well, technically, not even euthanasia - the Bp appeared to be alluding to a process which was akin to abortion, except it was geared for the aged).

The good Bp responded in a letter to the Times, where he…errr..entirely failed to address the question put to him and instead, responded with several meaningless questions of his own. Mr. Aaronovitch has himself responded to Bp Wrights questions - and repeated his initial query to him. The world awaits...

You ask me about my own mistakes. OK, I made a semantic mistake by failing to acknowledge that the proposed legislation will address both embryology and abortion under the same Government paper. Fair enough, although I note that every other fact I have put forward seems to be entirely spot on.

However, I wonder whether we will ever see the likes of Bp Wright and Cardinal Dunderhead actually responding to the truth, which is that their contributions have been wholly misleading, scientifically woeful and taken in entirety, about the grossest piece of ignorant religious propoganda one could imagine? Can you see them apologising for getting it so spectacularly wrong (on a far greater scale than I ever could)?

I'm not holding my breath.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Parr,

It seems most unlikely that the bizarre forms of experimentation proposed in this bill will benefit anyone other than the stem-cell industry espoused and sponsored by Brown and Blair. Since 1992 it has not produced a single verifiable treatment, whereas the technique which uses adult stem cells is already producing results.

You need have no concern: I would not wish to benefit from any form of treatment derived from unethical or immoral scientific experimentation, and in this case it seems extremely unlikely. It is a money-making scheme, which as a taxpayer I will be funding without my consent.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

As a taxpayer, I fund faith schools without my consent. I don't even get the choice over whether I can send my children to one - regardless of geography - on the basis that I won't pretend to false piety.

Presumably your not quite so upset about my wasted tax money, though?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

J Pearce, faith schools are also funded by religious taxpayers, who form a greater proportion of the population than the proportion of places available for our children in faith schools.

Funnily enough there are plenty of non-religious parents who also want to send their children to faith schools (see the Ben Elton thread above) because they see that the ethos provided is rather better for their children than the void at the heart of many local state schools. As taxpayers I am sure they too would like to see more, not fewer faith schools available for their children.

And I am sure most of the population would rather their taxes went into education, than the pockets of New Labour and its cronies.

[George Parr]

Since this thread is actually about religious concerns over ethics, perhaps mentioning faith schools is a valid comparison.

I object to 'the taxpayer', which means all of us, funding a schools system which segregates and distils, clogging up already emaciated areas of choice. The reason that the non-religious wish to send their children to faith schools is precisely because through a draconic process of selection and rejection they figure highly in league tables along with many others; the 'ethos' provided being notwithstanding. Equally, because in many areas they are faced with a reduction of local choice, parents are willing to manufacture a specious and temporary history of piety in order to gain places for their children - a dishonest malpractice that faith schools are content to aid and abet if the candidate is sufficiently bright. Ethics for faith communities can be seen then to be selective, much like doctrinal interpretation.

If parents genuinely wish to define their children through their own personal beliefs, immersing them within a rarified atmosphere heavy with religion, they should pay privately for the privilege. Then we can all measure just how eager these people are for faith-based schooling. 'The taxpayer' just wants more good schools available to him my dear Marsh.

It is wholly disgraceful that in a self-evidently pluralistic society an education system which urgently needs to be inclusive and excellent should be run on this antiquated, quasi-elitist and piecemeal basis.

[J Pearce]

I can play this game too.

Alan, embryonic research is also funded by non-religious taxpayers, who form a greater proportion of the population then religious ones.

Funnily enough, there are plenty of non-religious people who want to see embryonic research continued, especially when they have a vested interest in potential therapies and treatments, which may have a direct impact upon their lives.

And I am sure that most of the population would rather their taxes went into funding groundbreaking research of direct benefit to the country, medicine and the economy, rather than propping up religious vested interests and perpetuating educational apartheid through religious sectarianism.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Mr Parr, pontificating as usual about matters beyond his knowledge!

Admissions policies for all state schools are under constant pressure where a school is perceived to do well for its pupils. As a school governor I can tell you that policies are very hard to sustain in the face of challenges from determined parents, and nothing prevents those who have the means to do so from moving into the vicinity of the school in question - or even providing a false address.

Faith schools - in great demand from taxpayers of all kinds - can hardly be blamed for doing well for their pupils and thus creating a demand for places. The onus lies with the honesty and integrity of parents who abuse the system in order to get what they want for their children. Doubling the number of faith schools would help to ease the pressure.

The proper solution would be for the state to provide a first-class education for every child, but that would require a massive shift in attitudes both within government and within the state education system - which have preferred for generations to use schools for social engineering rather than education.

"New" Labour is certainly not going to do anything so revolutionary. Neither will the Conservatives, led by Old Etonians who simply can't understand the problem.

[George Parr]

George Parr is not a plumber therefore he can know nothing about plumbing. Well wouldn't you just know it - Mr Marsh a school governor - restoring my faith in the theory that local busybodies have their uses! (Marshian-style tongue-in-cheek comment for sensitive readers)

I agree with you regarding the morbid stasis in both cultural and financial attitudes by either party over creating a world class system, but it does not stop attention being drawn to the issue. Your assertion that doubling faith schools might be an appropriate way of easing pressure seems to me to be a relativist theory which smacks of a one-way solution. This eqally hopeless plan might serve to further demonstrate just how compartmentalised Christians are when seeking to solve problems affecting everyone else and, worryingly, how it affects their thinking.

What evidence is there that 'faith schools are in great demand from taxpayers of all kinds'?

What IS evidently in demand is more choice, more good schools and not least an ability to utilise the number of schools that do exist, without a sizeable proportion demanding pious parental obeisance in addition to measured educational criteria. This myth that somehow faith schools solely represent an educational apogee serves only to devalue other excellent but oversubscribed schools.

So, as someone clearly at the cutting edge of educational policy, are you not able, on behalf of those of us who, of course, have absolutely no idea, to pontificate usefully in order to install the first-rate system that you agree is required?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Parr

The evidence is clear enough: faith schools provide a better education than the generality of state schools, and parents rightly want their children to attend them, irrespective of their own beliefs. Church of England schools welcome children of all faiths and none.

The Church of England is unable to open new faith schools quickly enough to keep up with the parental demand, but you would naturally seek to prevent this solution, and prefer to continue the desolate condition of state education as it is.

Attitudes like yours,in teachers, politicians, LEAs, etc., are responsible for the dreadful state system which is failing so many children - one which is designed to create "equality" but only results in mediocrity.

[J Pearce]

"The evidence is clear enough: faith schools provide a better education than the generality of state schools.."

But faith schools are de facto state schools, on the basis they are funded by the taxpayer!

So, Alan, I have to ask, do you believe in religious obedience as entry criteria for schooling?

Do you believe it is right to force people (parents) to pretend to beliefs that they otherwise would ignore, solely as a pretext for getting their children educated?

Because to me, it looks like you - the man in the education system, remember - are not advocating "good schooling" as such, but, in fact, backdoor indoctrination.

You think education based on religious apartheid is acceptable, do you? Because that is what faith schooling represents.

[J Pearce]

Furthermore, according to this report Alan:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3671157.ece

It appears that it is faith schools which are not only implementing educational apartheid on religious grounds, but also bribery! And which sector of state education has been found to be not complying with the current admissions code? Why, that would be faith schools as well!

Is this the kind of education system you really want to see, Alan? It doesn't sound very Christian to me - it rather sounds like faith schools operate their own "admissions policy", independent of state regulation, where only the allegedly pious - or monied - are favoured and the rest of the potential intake is discarded, regardless of geography, achievement or IQ.

In other words, it is educational elitism biased towards the religious. Alan, I find it hard to reconcile your apparent dislike of the Government and its alleged attempts at social engineering through education, when that is exactly what you are advocating using faith schools!

Both are equally deplorable. You should be ashamed.

[John Ross Martyn]

The second chapter of the Book of Genesis tells us that God made Eve from Adam's rib. She was, in effect, cloned. I understand that this story was put into its present form by Jewish intellectuals at the time of the Exile, or shortly thereafter. These men were immensely ignorant of biology, and may have been male chauvinists. However, they cannot have thought that cloning was wrong in itself, nor that it was inherently wrong to create human beings otherwise than by sexual reproduction. God was doing these things, so they could not - and cannot - be wrong in themselves. Maybe men and women should not do what God has done, but the burden of arguing that is a heavy one. It is especially hard to argue it when the purpose is God's purpose of healing the sick.

[John Ross Martyn]

The second chapter of the Book of Genesis tells us that God made Eve from Adam's rib. She was, in effect, cloned. I understand that this story was put into its present form by Jewish intellectuals at the time of the Exile, or shortly thereafter. These men were immensely ignorant of biology, and may have been male chauvinists. However, they cannot have thought that cloning was wrong in itself, nor that it was inherently wrong to create human beings otherwise than by sexual reproduction. God was doing these things, so they could not - and cannot - be wrong in themselves. Maybe men and women should not do what God has done, but the burden of arguing that is a heavy one. It is especially hard to argue it when the purpose is God's purpose of healing the sick.

[George Parr]

It must be wonderful Alan Marsh to live on a planet whose existence relies on generality and one in which its denizens believe that the Church is a conduit to the type of education everybody wants.

Moreover holding people, who question the morality of faith schools, responsible for a 'dreadful state system' is not only an appalling generalism but also wholly untrue and completely unfair to very performance-measured, hardworking teachers.

It really is difficult to imagine any mindset more mediocre than one in which standards of excellence are proposed through forcing divinity upon a state system paid for through taxation.

It is of course outrageous for 'people like you' (your phrase) to railroad education, promoting religion as an entry criterion. Since you claim you are a school governor, what is your remit, the proselytization of your own version of religion, through rigid selection, heaping regulation on parents who actually just want high standards for their children? Or do you display the neutrality expected of those who actually believe the elasticated point that faith schools genuinely welcome everyone?

You have ably demonstrated that religion and education should be separate, displaying a dismissive attitude to viable schools with no religious ethos. It is also fairly clear that the incremental policy that you describe, for maintaining divisive and exclusive faith schools is part of the problem, not the solution. It causes types of social stigmatisation, with poorly performing schools in some areas being thrown to the wolves.

Presumably your earlier acknowledgement that an increase in faith schools is not a 'proper solution' actually describes an attitude whereby you are content to sit and watch consecutive governments doing nothing about it.

In short you appear not to care about the first-class system you refer to, since all the while the present system struggles it appears to suit your religious agenda. Are you sure you are a school governor?

[George Parr]

Alan Marsh, for 'people like you' read 'attitudes like yours' -Freudian slip.

[John]

Parr and Pearce, what a parade of your collective and rather tired prejudices!

As a governor of a state (not church) school I have seen for myself over a number of years just how far the state fails the children which it requires to attend its schools - in an area without a church school or any other option unless parents are wealthy enough to afford private education.

The fact is that Church schools are immensely popular among all sections of society and people do choose them in preference to the kind of secular institution which is so much beloved of the two of you.

A number of Church schools I know have significant numbers of children whose parents are not religious, but prefer the ethos of the school; and many have significant numbers from other faiths, who do not want their children to attend secular institutions.

We are all taxpayers, and some parents are fortunate enough to have the option of seeing their taxes support the church school which their children attend as a matter of choice.

The current nonsense about admission policies is no more than an attempt by Ed Balls to find eveidence for a witch-hunt against faith schools. Strangely enough he published his defamatory claims before checking them out with the head teachers concerned. It seems old habits die hard in New Labour.

[George Parr]

So Jim, Alan Marsh doesn't have a point then when from his school governor's perspective he says that the state needs to provide a first-class system, as an alternative to the current anomaly over faith schools and also to improve the state sector?

I fail to see how highlighting an issue reeking of inequality and privilege, with th express intention of improving the schools system can be read as prejudice.

The current situation, where concerned parents are reduced to moving house or claiming a faith they do not embrace, or as ratepayers and taxpayers going cap in hand, is hardly desirable.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I too am a governor of a state school, and it has been a very difficult and frustrating ten years, after all the promises made by Blair concerning the education system. We still have huge class sizes, fewer teaching hours, and a bureaucratic mountain of paperwork and regulations to deal with, all of which seems to change with each new Secretary of State.

At least one state school in this area has decided to apply for sponsorship as a church school, and more are considering it.

[J Pearce]

Dear John…
Is it a prejudice to ask that state education should be separated from religious influence?

Are Church schools "immensely popular among all sections of society", or is it, in fact, that good schools are popular among all sections of society? I won't deny that there are a number of faith schools that achieve high educational standards - but are you trying to tell me that non-faith schools that achieve the same high standards are somehow "less popular", simply because they do not promote one particular faith? Do me a favour!

You talk about choice. What sort of choice is involved when a parent is effectively blackmailed into pretending religious piety, just to get their child a decent education? Do you really think that if the state provided a decent, high achieveing non-faith school near to where a secular parent lived, they would refuse to send their child to it? Preferring instead to jump through ridiculous religious hoops to get their child into a faith school? I rather think not.

Faith schools (and their sponsors in the Church) are exploiting the current malaise in the education system, using parental desperation as a means of justifying their existence. Lets not fanny around, the bottom line is that the Church - all religions - see education as means of introducing (i.e. indoctrinating) children into their particular belief system.

Otherwise, what is the point of having a school that adheres to any particular religious ethos?! Their entire existence is predicated on the idea that children will be inculcated into the particular religious ideology of the school in question - to claim otherwise is to deny their singular raison d'etre.

Ideally, state education should provide quality education for all, without recourse to institutions that peddle an ideology often incompatible with wider societal mores. In practice, this isn't happening - hence the apparent demand for faith schools. The questions for me are:

* is it beneficial for society as a whole, to base access to educational faculties on perceived adherence to a divisive belief system?

* is it right that the state provide a multi-tier education system, essentially implementing educational apartheid on the basis of faith (or not)?

* should religions be allowed to socially engineer from within the state education system?

My answer to all three would be a resounding "No". Hence my belief that faith schools should remain outside of state education and in the realm of private schooling. Lets see how popular they are then.

[John]

It ia hardly worth attempting to reply to such a prejudiced and violent response, Mr(?) Pearce.

But this is still officially a Christian country, a fact with which many citizens identify; church schools are not what you imagine them to be; and yes, many parents - of many faiths and none - do actively prefer a Church school for their children, in preference to a state school which operates on a purely secular basis.

By all means raise the standards in every school - but you will still see people choosing Church schools, as do many muslims in our neighbourhood who send their children to the local (CofE) School rather than to the moral wasteland at the local state comprehensives, where crime and bullying and drugs are rife and the quality of teaching abysmal, despite the herculean sums spent on them.

It's not about indoctrination, you see: it is about providing an ethos for children which is not driven by the (im)morality of the secular society which you espouse and which I reject, along with many other taxpayers and parents.

[J Pearce]

John,

It must be pleasing to you to be able to sit in judgement like some religious ideologue and condemn the entire secular state education system, despite the fact that there are any number of excellent secular state comprehensives which defy your prejudices. I do wonder about your comprehension, though ("violent response"? Que?).

The argument isn't about standards, as such (actually, it was about religious leaders getting things spectacularly wrong in regards to the Embryology bill, but seeing as they've been comprehensively trounced on this thread, I'm assuming that’s done and dusted…); its about educational apartheid. Its about the fact that parents have to lie and manipulate to get their children a decent education.

I would have more sympathy for Church schools, if they didn't impose restrictions on entry. Why should an educational facility, which is state funded and therefore essentially a "state" school, be allowed to implement entry restrictions on ideological grounds? What benefit to society is it, that some children can be excluded from good schools (yes, I happily admit that some faith schools can provide good education, but I wasn't arguing against that anyway), simply because they or their parents don't happen to believe in some spurious, ancient cult leader?

All parents want schools with a "good ethos". I can't argue with the fact that for an alarming number of state schools, they are in dire straits. I blame the Government as much as you appear to. But you also appear to be arguing for a system where access is restricted; essentially, you are arguing for educational elitism, based on religious belief. This can only widen the social and cultural divide you appear to abhor so much in secular state schools.

I have yet to see you, or any other religious apologists, present a cogent argument as to why it is acceptable to condemn children to an inferior education, simply because they or their parents don't believe. One can only conclude that it must be down to the implicit "us and them" mindset of modern Christians - the assumption of moral superiority, the concomitant arrogance and belief that they deserve "better" than non-believers. In other words, same old, same old.

The ultimate irony, though, is that educational selection based on perceived religious piety appears utterly at odds with the core message of JC. Funny, that...

[John]

State schools, J Pearce, are provided and funded by the state, so if anyone is (to use your words) "condemned to an inferior education" it is the state which is responsible for this situation - not the Church, which provides sponsorship and resources for its own schools which contribute to making them desirable places of education for parents of all faith and none. And no, you are not required to be CofE in order to send your children there. Some church schools have a majority from other faiths!

Presumably you think the state can provide a decent education without the help of the church - so please explain why it is failing to compete with church schools? Why does your reductionist, secularist ideology result in poor schools and incompetent teaching, overseen by the ideologues on the LEA?

After all, Blair promised us "Education, Education, Education" back in 1997. Where has that got us? Falling standards in the state sector in academic achievement and in ethos, despite the massive increase in state spending. Children leaving state schools illiterate and brutalised. Metal detectors installed at school gates and security guards in classrooms. What a secular paradise!

It seems to me that it is Balls and the like who have made an ideological balls-up of state education - of the kind which you argue for every day on this blog - at the taxpayers' expense!

[J Pearce]

I didn't realise disingenuity and hypocrisy were traits to be valued and nurtured in Christianity, John. Plainly, I am wrong.

Don't give me this twaddle about "not having to be C of E in order to send your children there". We all know that the overriding criteria is attendence in Church. To pretend that faith schools are "open to all" is plainly ridiculous and an affront to common sense. Plus, as you say yourself "some Church schools have a majority from other faiths" - so that’s all right then, is it? It’s the religious in and everyone else out, eh? Good grief!

I will repeat - again, because it doesn't seem to have sunken in - that I am not apologising or attempting to mask the flaws in certain sections (not all) of our state system (and I notice that the only "reductionism" going on is that which exists inside your head, where you try to portray the entire state system as failed, whereas in reality, that is plainly not the case).

Non-faith schools that succeed can be used as exemplars to other schools in the country. I have argued against all forms of ideological manipulation of state schools, whether it be politically or religiously motivated. I have never said that I support the Governments interventionist policies in education (I actually have a lot of sympathy for Alan in that respect), although I suppose it suits your argument to accuse me of such. Life is so much simpler when you can negatively stereotype, eh John?

What I do see in faith schools is the exclusion of potentially excellent and gifted children, based solely on religious grounds (i.e. the parents don't go Church). This is educational apartheid, pure and simple. An inconvenient truth about faith schools which the religious are too cowardly to acknowledge. The implicit religious attitude appears to be "all believers get a better shot at life, the rest of the scum can rot". Make you proud, does it John? Accords with your impervious sense of righteousness, does it?

Yes, I do believe the state can provide a decent education system. Which co-exists alongside religious-sponsored, private faith schools. In the interim, faith schools should be forced to drop plainly divisive and elitist entry criteria. That would seem to be the most Christian thing to do.

Church schools would not be able to provide for their own constituency (who pay taxes like everyone else) if they were unable to offer some places to families who want a particular religious ethos for their children. Your only argument, J Pearce, is to demand that no such schools should exist.

As it is, the Church (like other religions) continues to provide sponsorship and resources for a proportion of schools, most of which were built by the Church in the first place, which have formed part of the state system since 1944.

It enables the Church to offer an education which many parents seek out for their children as a religious education per se (whether or not they are active chur