Some have said the assisted dying debate has been "parliament at its best". I'm not so sure. Instead I think religion has quietly played a dominant role in the debate, distorted the conversation, with few believing MPs being straightforward about why. My piece for the i. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/mps-dishonest-oppose-assisted-dying-3405508
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/pdj.bsky.social/post/3lc3ka7jm3k2p
We have a country that allows many different beliefs and we have representatives not delegates.
Atheism is a belief system just as Christianity or Islam is.
The issue really is if the belief system controls your voting.
In fact, religious belief doesn't appear to be a major factor in who has chosen to represent any major party... unless you count climate change as a "belief"
No MP has to explain themselves in a free vote in my view.
If their constituents don't like it, let them vote that person out next time.
I just don't see religious belief of MPs being that important here.
Plus Labour don’t seem to want to do anything seriously substantive (bit more inheritance tax for farmers is ok, rejoin SM &/or CU? Forget it!)
We elect people to exercise their best judgment in the legislation before them not just to follow polling data
And in particular to scrutinise the specific legislation laid in parliament
That is their overriding duty in our country
I fail to see where personal belief and religious doctrine fit into shaping legislation as an MP.
Short of forcing MPs with religion to recuse (how would you enforce that?), religion is bound to shape this debate
Now, we expect representatives to use arguments about the public.
That judgement can be personal and can be 'informed by their faith' - but it shouldn't be *about their faith*.
It's not a very tolerant position you hold is it
Meanwhile, let's give evidence and secular rationality a go, shall we?
And the ethics of most religions are just based on simple rules for social animal behaviour.
Religion you ain't seen nothing yet.
Speaking as a lifelong atheist, faith has no place in this debate or indeed the direction of travel for this legislation.
This is about allowing a modicum of dignity & compassion for people who are suffering a hideously cruel & painful end to their lives with appropriate safeguarding.
Faith is different to religion.
Honestly I'm amazed at the atheists who decide that their position isn't religious whereas anyone with a faith is clearly somehow biased.
The scientific method can be a religious belief too.
"Follow the science"
Understanding how the peer review method works means that you have to believe that people will review in good faith.
It also means that *time* is a factor because sometimes scientific papers aren't disproved for years.
2) disputed evidence is reasonable
3) most religious people don't base their "whole belief" on anything
4) "scientific evidence" is an imperfect belief system as well
5) the scientific method is more robust but it's still not perfect
The scientific method works a lot of the time, but over the arc of history.
It's too easy to both assume scientists are always correct AND to assume scientists are wrong because your social media echo chamber says so.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/
I'm a scientist. I love the scientific method. But how it is used an applied by individuals can often look very similar to religion.
Echo chambers are very powerful.
It's a product of the enlightenment
I'm not sure I agree. We have representatives not delegates. We voted for these people to represent us.
Understanding why an MP votes in a free vote... it's not clear cut.
We as voters give them agency to act as they wish.
But this is not. One’s belief systems or faith based morality as an MP shouldn’t be an overriding factor in my view.
You do realise that yes?
I’m not. I’m expressing my opinion & saying that I would prefer that facts & experiences prevail over religion.
If anyone chooses to prioritise their God over the suffering of others then that is their choice.
Whether I agree with it or not.
My lack of religious belief or assignation to a faith wouldn’t play a part in my choice if I had a vote Paul.
My own lived experience & watching others suffer at end of life knowing that this difficult choice (if offered) would be welcomed by many if offered does.
"I'm an atheist therefore..."
You identified your atheism and your belief in "facts" as being a key part of how you would vote.
You have a belief system. Own it
It's irrelevant what you think they *should* base their decision on.
Lots of arguments and nothing to do with religion.
Dominic grieve was very interesting
It's not all about themselves & if they're so concerned about their own convictions, perhaps they're in the wrong job.
if your beliefs dont align with making that choice, you dont have to.
this country believes in the right to choose, take abortion as an example, your body, your choice.
if i could, I'd be signing the paperwork now, ready for the day when i'm no longer capable
as any basic philosophy of religion class at university might explain
A state church established by law with rules set down by parliament in two parts
And a head of state who is necessarily also supreme governor of those same churches (a different term applies in Scotland)
These minority belief systems are meaningless to the majority in the UK.
Given the track record of the organisations pushing them many are suspicious of their claims to morality.
I’d say parliament at its worst.
A ballot to allow any backbencher to propose whatever she likes?
And so little time for discussion and only a 5 hour debate?
And all the insults from those supporting this dangerous bill that’s literally a matter of life and death!
Now the party system, whipping etc is something I'd also change but that's a discussion for another day!
But the point of this thread is that some MPs are masking their religious objections with a rational facade
Are we a democracy or a de facto theocracy?