Embryo wars - science, morality and a Bill ...

The Embryo Bill finally gets its second reading in Parliament today. The three main questions put to MPs will be:
Hybrid embryos: scientists want to create embryos that are over 99% human for research into stem cells by implanting DNA from an adult human nucleus into a cow or rabbit egg.
Access to IVF for lesbian couples: the bill changes the wording of the current act to remove the "need for a father" provision for children conceived by IVF.
"Saviour siblings". The circumstances in which children genetically matched to a sibling with a genetic disease can be created by IVF are to be relaxed.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries has also tabled amendments to reduce the limit for abortions to 20 weeks instead of the current 24. For more on the proposals see the Guardian.

the debate:

I don’t think there’s been a reasoned debate in the media about the Bill. There’s been hyperbole from Cardinal Keith O'Brien warning against ‘Frankenstein science’, there’s been the question of allowing a free vote on certain aspects but not the entire Bill, but no debate. I wonder how MPs have taken a decision on how to vote on the legislation. What did they read? Whom have they consulted? What principles have they applied?

It is a moral issue. However, as usual, the more liberal voices do not make the news. I believe morality has a place within liberalism (as a philosophy, in fact I believe liberal ideas are fundamentally moral ideas. I would thus welcome moral issues being discussed in the public arena from a liberal point of view, which is what I try to do on this blog. (See BBC on previous stem cell research controversy).

the morality:

Scientific and technological advancements are increasingly entering the sphere of morality. Whilst some neglect the moral implications of medical or scientific research, some others are monopolising the moral discourse and firmly grounding it along absolutist lines, such as embryos having equal value to human beings and so on. I’m not clear what the official or unofficial position of the various groups is as the debate on abortion has been added to the issue of stem cell research and the issue is getting rather muddled.
From my perspective, morality being ‘not in heaven’, but down here, where there are real situations, benefits, harm, good and evil, all at the same time, it cannot be reduce to black and white. It is about choosing what is best, or better or, sometimes, just the lesser evil. There are various interpretations of ‘life’ (especially when it starts and ends) and there are many aspects to its sanctity. This is why you need flexibility, which makes Judaism complex, but isn’t life complex?

From a ‘moral point of view’, I believe society should pursue the common good. Human beings are partners in creation with God and are under moral obligation to fight injustice and suffering, be that coming from our own actions or the natural environment. From the point of view of ‘moral liberalism’, we should strive to reconcile the pursuit of the common good with individual freedom. General moral principles, however, such as the ‘sanctity of life’, require interpretation in the light of knowledge of facts.

science & morality:

In this instance, hybrid embryos are considered by the scientific community to be an avenue to find a cure for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. There might not be the only one, but a pretty good one. It is true that it is now possible to employ adult stem cells, however this is so because scientists have developed the necessary knowledge based on their research on embryonic stem cells. As such, the case for the pursuit of the common good is, I believe, quite clear. The present Bill seems to be putting in place the right safeguards while allowing research that can save many lives. The Bill does not allow the creation from scratch of embryos, nor are the hybrid embryos allowed to develop after 14 days or to be implanted.

In Judaism (see, for example, Orthodox site Aish), life does not start at conception, but later on. This is mostly derived by the pecuniary sanctions imposed on someone who unintentionally causes a miscarriage by striking a woman (Ex.21,22). It is not a capital crime.
The foetus becomes a full human being once it’s born. Nevertheless, it is protected during the pregnancy and abortion ‘on demand’ is not halachically permitted. There need to be serious grounds for abortion to be allowed, which vary depending on the specific situation. They tend to include psychological trauma to the mother, rape, incest and, for some, disability. Opinions vary, however, on what constitute legitimate grounds, not only between Reform Liberal and Orthodox Judaism, but also within each movement. Most importantly, it cannot be regulated according to general principles; rather it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That’s why most Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum have supported the Bill.

Maidenhead Synagogue Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Judaism is just as concerned at the sanctity of human life as Catholicism but strongly differs from Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Easter sermon against the Embryology Bill. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research is not to be condemned as 'Frankenstein science' but welcomed as a life-saving development that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes.
Crossing boundaries always carries risks, but providing safeguards against abuse are put in place, there is no need to fear the future and it is irresponsible to hold-back the progress that could benefit so many lives. The Cardinal is accusing scientists of creating monsters, but maybe it is even more monstrous to obstruct possible cures.”

Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

Sex, the media & personal freedom

I realised I condensed a few thoughts in a very short piece in my post Sexy, so here are a few more thoughts.

Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.

Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.

Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?

Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?

The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?

Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)

Sexy

I keep on coming across appalling music videos where women act or are paraded as if they were for sale. There seems to be a very fine line between what is deemed 'sexy' in a woman and the debasing display of body parts.
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:

What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?

...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!

Religion, blind faith and lost beauty

I find John Gray’s critical review of the new ‘atheists’ a little sweeping and weak. He rightly points to their lack of self-understanding and their little knowledge of religion and indeed science and liberalism. That’s the easy bit though. What the article lacks, although admittedly it would have become an essay, is a deeper understanding of what religion is; what faith is and why it’s coming back; and the difference between religious faith and ‘blind faith’. For the record, ‘blind faith’ is NOT faith in something that cannot be proven. Blind faith is belief in something about the physical world despite contrary evidence.
Gray suggests that religion is back due to the retreat and defeat of XX ideologies, such as fascism and communism. More to the point, ideologies replaced religion, albeit for a relatively short period of time.
Now religion is back, although it’s difficult to tell what shape it’ll take. It is back because people need meaning and answers in front of the confusion that is enveloping our world. We’re possibly at the climax of a technological revolution, which is shattering our convictions and identity just as much as the Industrial Revolution did.
The Industrial Age ushered a new world where power was reinterpreted (Marx), where society was dissected (Weber) and where even our inner self was analysed (Freud). In such an uncertain multifaceted world, people sought certainties and unity. Fascism and Communism dominated our understanding of modernity while threading upon dissent and liberty.
People need again certainties and meaning. Perhaps there will always be people, be it Grayling, Dawkins, Dennett or religious fundamentalists, who need dogmatic certainties. It matters little whether such dogmas have a religious or ‘scientific’ flavour. In actual fact, I don’t particularly mind other people’s dogmas as long as these are not imposed on others.
Personally, I thrive in doubt. I like complexities and don’t mind contradictions because this is life. Life goes beyond categories. This, I believe, is what it means to be liberal: to continuously challenge oneself and one’s understanding of the world and morality. Liberal theology has no dogmas and liberal science has no forgone conclusions. Of this mysterious world the dogmatic mind most resents its poetry and contradictory truths that cannot be categorised and labelled. Let’s hope this new revolution will not be dominated by dogmatic minds. Let's hope they will not succeed in taking away our sense of beauty. For all, then, would be lost.

The immorality of the death penalty

I’ve recently been in a discussion on capital punishment and here are some reflections on the moral issues surrounding it.
[I therefore will not discuss crime as a whole, its causes and what we should do about it. I would obviously want more to be done to tackle the causes of crime, including corporate crime, and create more opportunities for all.]

I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. It seems to be the product of an inherently deterministic approach to life, be it socio-economic determinism (societal and economic condition leading to crime) or biological (genetic predisposition).
I believe in free will, the capacity to choose between right and wrong so I cannot accept determinism. Whilst I accept that socio-economic conditions, upbringing, DNA etc. can influence one’s life and lead to certain directions, I believe we can choose how to act, no matter how difficult it might be. Not all people with the same/similar upbringing, who have lived in deprived conditions or who have a tendency towards violence, act violently.
Furthermore, people change over time and gain understanding and responsibility. To sentence people to death implies denying our changing nature. It implies that none of us gain understanding, maturity and deepen our conscience over time.
It seems to suggest that one becomes an adult when turning 18, or even before, and there is no change, no redemption afterwards. Therefore, to kill the killer means depriving the person of the opportunity to change and to repair.

However, I shall consider the contrary opinions. Opposition to the above argument is generally predicated on two main considerations:

1. Retaliation: many supporters of capital punishment argue that the perpetrator of the crime needs to atone his/her crimes by getting the just deserts or an equal punishment. This is Immanuel Kant’s argument based on the principle of equality. For a thorough bashing of it, see Wright.
It is difficult to see the difference between retaliation and vengeance. In the case of capital punishment, retaliation is extreme and therefore the punishment has no other purpose than to punish. If, however, we accept an element of re-education in the punishment of all lesser crimes, we cannot discount such element for very serious ones. Alternatively, one needs to establish what makes ‘serious crimes’ serious? Which yardstick shall we use? If all sentences are simply to punish, it implies that human beings cannot learn anything and change. It fundamentally denies free will.

2. Loss of humanity: according to some, perpetrators of heinous crimes lose their humanity by virtue of committing such crimes. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, the criminal decidit a dignitate humana, ceases to be human, thus to kill him/her is sicut occidere bestiam, like killing an animal.

The idea of loss of humanity is an interesting one although the most contradictory:
1. It potentially negates the idea of free will, which is a key component of our humanity. If the criminal was fully conscious, exercised free will when committing the crime, how can he/she lose it by committing the crime? Do we lose our free will and consciousness when we do something that is wrong? Can we gain it back?
2. Does the criminal lose his/her humanity only by virtue of committing the crime? If so, this implies that social conditioning have no impact on human behaviour. Do they have an impact only on less severe crimes?
3. Was the criminal ‘less human’ before committing the crime due to social or biological conditioning? This leads to pre-crime intervention, be it ‘societal’ (see one of Blair's ideas) or medicalisation (as in A clockwork orange).
4. What crimes lead one to lose one’s humanity? How would these be classified?
5. What is humanity? I assume in this context, humanity is seen as what moves us beyond our ‘lowest’ passions such as hatred, but it is implied rather than explained. It does not address the possibility of us all being deprived of our humanity (through enslavement, for example) although not committing crimes. If, once humanity is lost, it is never re-gained, should the state deprive of freedom those who have lost their humanity through enslavement? Or is it just for those who pose a danger to society?
6. Who would exercise the supreme right and duty to put the criminal to death? The Leviathan comes to mind. Nevertheless, in the Hobbesian social contract, one negotiates away only the minimum rights to ensure peace. How can the right to life be considered a right that can be dispensed of if necessary to maintain the peace?
7. Does killing the perpetrator lead to peace?

I believe that such arguments leave one only with vengeance. What is vengeance?
1. Vengeance is taking satisfaction from the suffering or death of another as repayment for one’s loss and suffering. It’s the lex talionis, often referred to as ‘eye for an eye’. In reality the Talmud is very explicit in showing that eye for an eye shows a restriction on violence moving towards the taking of the value of an eye for the loss of an eye. The penalty is not the equivalence of the crime suffered by the victim.
2. It’s very human, but it can also be seen as brutalising and dehumanising the one who seeks vengeance. Cesare Beccaria argues that it desensitises us from suffering. Beccaria, together with the Verri brothers, was perhaps the first modern criminologist and certainly the most important advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.
3. It doesn’t lead to peace, instead it seems to lead to cleansing.

In conclusion, I believe that those who advocate capital punishment are after something else. They are moved by the primordial need for justice, for purity, which becomes only vengeance. By taking away the humanity of the perpetrator of the crime and thus his/her possibility of redemption, capital punishment symbolises the cleansing of our collective crimes and conscience. According to this logic, those who attack our purity by committing crimes need to be killed just as the sacrificial lamb represents the community’s sins. It is a communal catharsis where the society is cleansed by killing the bogey man. An important element is missing: repentance. The sacrificial lamb does not atone the community unless the community (and the perpetrator of the crime) repents. Some perpetrators might never repent; some of them do enjoy the pain and fear of their victims, but who is this Leviathan who scrutinises the soul and condemns it forever?

death penalty
morality

Law, morality and the Archbishop

I read Rowan Williams’ long pages of ambiguous woolliness and managed not to get too irritated. He’s right, of course, to say that as soon as you mention sharia most people (or the media?) think “it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments”. No wonder it caused such a bang, which, I assume, was Rowan’s intention to ‘diffuse’ or confuse tensions ahead of Lambeth Conference. It feels, however, that he has miscalculated how loud the bang would be.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:

recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.

To counter this problems, he reassures us that

If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.

This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.

The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.

Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. It is difficult to see quite why the principle cannot be extended in other areas.

Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.

The information market

Sometimes I come across rather frightening blogs where the author twists the information, has no regard for objectivity, historicity and is filled with paranoid propaganda. The sad aspect of this is that the authors of such blogs/sites and many of their readers believe their own nonsense.
Ideology and propaganda have always been around, but the new means of information have much wider availability, audience, and next to zero critical thinking. Next to the blogs and sites where the information is checked and often referenced, there are millions of others that are sheer nonsense. I might be guilty of some nonsense but I’m happy to review what I say or simply be persuaded by a contrary argument.
Persuasion and debate are the foundations of our democracy. A truly plural liberal democracy should encourage diverse groups promoting their interests and identities and reflecting in their arguments their specific viewpoints. I like niche markets and, from a consumerist point of view at least, we should have more. As argued in past posts, I would like to be able to read and watch sites/programmes on topics in which I’m interested regardless of where they are from, especially those in other languages as they offer a different perspective. Yet, it seems that niche markets are not as developed as niche propaganda.
Our democracy is undergoing profound changes but national governments are not gearing up to manage them. The proliferation of groups, interests and identities is an opportunity for increased diversity and flexibility, yet unless governments (in particular local government) engage sensibly with the new Babylon and establish some ground rules to ensure the rights of all, we will be crushed by it. The city of Bologna has issued a charter of rights and duties, which is an interesting example, so if you have others get in touch! But what about misinformation?
I could think of a couple of good examples of misinformation in Cardiff but let’s leave it there! The problem is that I haven’t come across a good way of managing communication. What is the best way for local government, politicians, interest/identity groups, lobbies etc to communicate in the public arena?
When does persuasion become propaganda? How do citizens defend themselves from misinformation? How do we protect the ‘common good’ and the res publica (as in the public democratic space) from the unscrupulous use of propaganda? In ancient Greece and Rome, the art of rhetoric had moral qualities. It was not to further untruths. Greeks and Romans were not that different from us, although they seem to have lots of intelligent people and a relatively small population.
How do we bring morality back in? The more the theo-cons are allowed to monopolise morality, the more our res publica will suffer from their propaganda. Long live liberalism?

Is Muslim the new 'Communist'? Who is the new McCarthy?

I’ve come across an e-mail with rumours that Obama is a Muslim. The details can be found at Urban Legends and more on CNN, Washigton Post etc.
It is clearly a paranoid attack trying to induce fear in the electorate. The most uncomfortable aspect of it is the fact that it implies that American Muslims are not American. It is rather reminiscing of the McCarthy era, although I doubt this is what awaits us. It would be important, however, to see whether there is a new McCarthy out there, be it a group or just stupid individuals. Most importantly, what is causing the paranoia? The media, politicians?
This race for the White House shows that America, like most countries perhaps, has deep-seated issues with race, gender, pluralism and religion. It is claimed that American Muslims are more integrated than British Muslims. Yet, American society’s discomforts about race can potentially radicalise groups on either ‘side’ (albeit not necessarily bringing violence), when all this could be avoided.
The abortion debate in the States seems to me an example of a society that does not really accept pluralism and where fundamentalist groups (such as those who target doctors), gain a voice precisely because they are a niche and are therefore unrepresentative.
I believe pluralism is about liberalism. It is not about creating a million interest or identity groups, but about respecting one’s multiple identities and interests without labelling one. A Catholic is no less a Catholic for not wearing a cross or a Jew no less a Jew for not eating kosher (stop saying that they are ‘not practising’!). Above all, pluralism allows individuals to interpret their tradition and identity and to choose how to express it while respecting others. This is liberal democracy at its best and it does require diversity.

Science, religion and the Golden Compass

This was one of those times when I wondered why I still bother going to the cinema at all. The Golden Compass is visually unimaginative, the acting is perfunctory, the script is bland and the morale utter trash.
The experience is made worse by the tendency of cinema theatres to keep the volume ridiculously high. I’m not sure whether that is done to compensate for lack of substance or to keep you awake.
The fuss about GC is in its ‘morale’, which is an unsophisticated whinge against authority. I understand the book (Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights) is supposedly critical of the Catholic Church for abusing its authority by keeping people in the dark. The film tones it down into a lacklustre opposition to authority.
When I sat in the cinema and watched the never ending nonsense, I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. Not having read what it was meant to be about, I was interpreting the inadequate script as a dumbed down version of the creation story. Accordingly, human beings transgressed authority and, as a result, evil becomes present in the world tempting people. The ‘authority’, aiming to keep people in their childhood ignorance and innocence, capture children before temptation can lead them astray.
One could even interpret it more blandly as a metaphor for history: a successive series of conquering what is perceived as evil, be it poverty, powerlessness, injustice and captivity, regardless of the means and oppression of others.
No such luck. The Golden Compass is paranoid fear of religious authority. Perhaps someone should point out to Pullman that the Catholic Church, and most other religious ‘authorities’, have lost their authority and power long time ago. I suppose it’s easier to look into the past (about 200 years in fact) and cover one’s eyes to our 21st century’s challenges.
Even so, the script is full of mistakes, using words inappropriately and confusing concepts such as ‘freedom’ with ‘free inquiry’ and ‘free will’. These are three separate concepts bundled together in the film by sheer ignorance.
Pullman seems to argue that authority wields power over people taking their ‘free will’ away, (by which he probably means free choice instead) and impedes free inquiry, such as the pursuit of knowledge, which he identifies it with modern science.
Free will is a philosophical category; it generally means choosing between good and evil, not what you’re having for lunch! Authorities, let alone the Catholic Church, have never taken away one’s free will. They have taken away one’s freedom by imprisoning and killing, and free choice by censoring books or people.
Pullman is stuck in the past when the Catholic Church waged war against modern science. Aside from the fact that history is much more complicated than this, the Catholic Church, at least, accepts of the theory of evolution and wields very little power, if any.
Pullman’s ignorance leads him to confine free inquiry to scientific research and to call scientific knowledge ‘truth’. Oopsy daisy!
The pursuit of the truth, being transcendent, is primarily philosophical and religious and is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry which concerns itself (or should concern itself) with objective reality.
Such incompetent ‘defenders’ of scientific inquiry feel under attack (not sure why since the bio-sciences get most of research funding) and launch an anachronistic tirade against an authority that is no more. If Pullman feels so strongly about authorities deciding for the rest of us, he should look elsewhere, at the new elites wielding power over knowledge.

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

Abortion rights and wrongs

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, wrote a very measured piece on the Observer yesterday about modern attitudes towards abortion. He expressed concerns that there has been a “weakening of the feeling that abortion is a last resort”. He laments the fact that there’s no longer the presumption of marriage as a lifelong union, that marriage and family are no longer seen as the “foundational things in a properly nurturing and stable society”, rather, people choose not to marry in ever greater numbers. Of course, he is not condemning anything, not against divorce, not against civil partnerships. In fact, he does not even suggest to outlaw abortion, but to tighten the law. … And?
I’m not sure whether Rowan Williams is trying to boost his liberal profile after the hard line taken against the American Episcopalians recently, or simply get some press coverage ahead of the anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 and show that he’s doing something. He might just be concerned and want a more stringent law. But why?
The law generally reflects society’s morals; it does not teach them. If Williams is right and abortion is no longer seen as ‘last resort’, but another form of contraceptive, which I’m afraid is what is being inferred here, the law would not change people’s minds a bit. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of some Pro-Life groups: they want the law changed to enforce their view. That’s why, I believe, in the US extremist Pro-Life groups went on to become violent. After all, if you think right and proper to force a particular moral view, the logical step is to force it by ‘other means’. It feels like the Catholic Church is smarter and better at the game. Whilst they do their bit of condemning, they concentrate on instilling their views in people’s minds. Nevertheless, it’s probably impossible to tell if it works given that any comparison between the US and Catholic countries would need to take into consideration too many factors influencing one’s behaviour in this matter.
The problem I have with all this stuff is that I can’t help finding it self-indulgent. Let me first say where I stand: I do consider abortion morally wrong because it’s ending potential life. In Judaism, foetuses are not equal to human beings, so abortion is not murder. Nevertheless, I believe abortion should indeed be last resort. This should not impact on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her life and future. Let's be clear: nobody wants more abortions. I, like everybody else, would like to see fewer abortions, I’d like a world where women are not raped, where they can demand the use of contraceptives without being thought of as ‘difficult’ or ‘fussy’, where couples have meaningful and respectful relationships. If pro-lifers were serious about this, they would try to find out why people resort to abortions rather than passing judgement. How many abortions are sought as a result of rape/incest? How many as a result of medical complications? How many simply as a result of ‘inconvenience’? All the abortion cases have their own story, their own real people facing a dilemma. By the way, a dilemma is a choice between wrong and wrong, not between right and wrong!
The language of ‘foetal rights’ obfuscates the reality of abortion and instils a presumption that many women choose lightly to have an abortion and treat it as another form of contraceptive. Even if this was the case, it would be symptomatic of the need for better sex education, which would include the discussion of human relationships, for moral, financial or human support.
Nevertheless, one cannot help thinking that some groups advocating morality devote more attention to ‘foetal rights’ than to the deeply immoral injustice, poverty, discrimination and violence many people experience every day in the UK. Morality is a political issue. Let’s bring it to the fore of public debate: let’s talk about violence, injustice and poverty.

Liberal Democracy and multiculturalism according to the Chief Rabbi

Jonathan Sacks, Chief Orthodox Rabbi, has jumped on the latest bandwagon blaming multiculturalism for the demise of society, morality, the nation and all things Tory. There are so many things wrong with his piece that it’s difficult to rebut concisely, but here are a few thoughts.
According to Sacks, multiculturalism, notwithstanding the good intentions, has resulted in segregation of groups, rather than integration and, subsequently, in a fragmentary identity politics which endangers liberal democracy.

Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. …
Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is eroding the graciousness of civil society. Religious groups are becoming pressure groups. Boycotts and political campaigns are infecting professional bodies. Culture is fragmenting into systems of belief in which civil discourse ends and reasoned argument becomes impossible.

Whilst it is true that many groups live separately, this is not the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism, rather it is the negative outcome of ill-conceived government policies and laisser-faire attitude. As such, segregation can only be tackled through a reinvigorated local democracy and policies aimed at substantive participation, rather than putting a cross on a ballot paper every four years. (By the way, this is also what I wanted to do my PhD on, so if you feel particularly generous and want to fund me, let me know!).
Sacks falls prey of a particularly pernicious type of nostalgia wishing the return to one common national culture and morality. This manufactured identity was always authoritarian and oppressive excluding those who did not fit the script. Thus, the Welsh were not allowed to speak Welsh and women could not be doctors, lawyers or academics.
Not content with all this, Sacks gets into a deeper mess by holding multiculturalism responsible for the demise of morality confusing individual autonomy with the excessive individualism and consumerism of the 1980s.

But there was something else happening at the same time, of great consequence: the slow demise of morality itself, conceived as the moral bond linking individuals in the shared project of society. …
In 1961, suicide ceased to be a crime. This might seem a minor and obviously humane measure, but it was the beginning of the end of England as a Christian country; that is, one in which Christian ethics was reflected in law. It was a prelude to other and more significant reforms. In 1967 abortion was legalised, as was homosexual behaviour. …

Individualism has indeed affected how we relate to the res publica, the shared polity, but this has nothing to do with the ability of the individual to make choices about his/her life, such as having homosexual relationships. Paradoxically, his dream of Britain as ‘one nation, one morality’ was dreamt by quite a few people before him including the English monarchs who expelled the Jews in 1290, the Spanish Kings who followed the same policy in 1492, and … oops Adolf Hitler!
I’m sure he doesn’t mean it this way, but perhaps he should think things through before publishing a book. This approach inevitably leads to authoritarianism due to the missing element of diversity. He also refers obliquely to Alisdair MacIntyre by mentioning ‘after virtue’, with which MacIntyre refers to modern ethics as devoid of meaning.
There is a big difference between excessive individualism where nobody cares about the res publica, the shared polity, and individual autonomy. As I have argued many times, individual autonomy is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, allowing us to be autonomous moral agent, no longer dependent on authority on matters that regard our own lives. The liberal democracy Sacks wants defended is predicated upon the same freedom and equality that he attacks, fruit of the meeting and often clashing of cultures throughout many centuries, and not of a 'one nation' myth. Democracy happens when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. The alternative is the tyranny of the majority.
Previous posts on similar topics are on freedom of conscience, law and morality, the century of the self and testing britishness.

Science and prejudice

James Watson, Nobel prize for discovering DNA (thanks to Rosalind Franklin’s research), got himself in trouble by suggesting in an interview with the Independent that blacks are less intelligent than whites. This is only the latest in a series of very unscientific statements. As detailed in the Independent,

In 1997 he suggested in a newspaper interview that a woman should have the right to abort a foetus if it was found to be carrying a "gay" gene. His attempts to justify his stance only made matters worse. He had been speaking in favour of choice for women, he said, but added "because most women want to have grandchildren ... it's common sense". …
Then in 2000 in a lecture at Berkeley University, after showing images of women in bikinis and veiled Muslim women, he suggested that there is a link between exposure to sunlight and libido. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." He then went on to show a photograph of Kate Moss and assert that thin people are unhappy and therefore ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," he added. Fat people may also be more sexual, he suggested, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin. …
He has talked about a gene for stupidity and suggested that stupid people should be aborted.

Watson sees the world through a deterministic kaleidoscope that makes him misunderstand genetics itself. He might think that he’s a free thinker, a real scientist who questions morality, culture, politics in the light of … that is the problem. There are no facts supporting his views only prejudice. In this latest episode, Watson equates intelligence with IQ tests, a culture specific measurement of certain abilities, which leave out intelligence that is difficult when not impossible to measure. All this stuff is very similar to the countless research done trying to find genetic, and presumably unalterable, differences between men and women. In reality, genetics is predicated upon mutability, upon the interaction between environment and genotypes. This pseudo-science of seeing genetics as some sort of pre-ordained system determining one’s abilities runs contrary to evolutionary theory and enlightenment philosophy.
Therefore, the Science Museum was quite right to cancel Watson’s talk. Watson’s comments were bad science and bad morality, but there’s more. If perverting science in order to justify and rationalise prejudices wasn't enough, help is at hand from people such as Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and a professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, who defend Watson’s ‘freedom of speech’, clearly not understanding science, ethics and freedom of speech.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Freedom of speech is not at stake. Watson can say and write what he wants, and we are free to say he’s an eejit. More to the point, if an educational institution, such as the Science Museum, engages a scientist to give a talk about science and he turns out not to be the brightest torch in the box, the institution would be quite right to decide to spend their money in a better way!
But, indeed, there would be a better way: just get them all back in the classroom to write "I'm thick" on the blackboard 100 times.

Abortion, the Catholic Church & Amnesty International

If it weren’t for the Guardian, my pedantry would be forever frustrated. I share, at least in part, Zoe Williams’ indignation at the Catholic Church’s opposition to Amnesty International due to their campaign in support of safe and legal abortions for victims of rape and incest. However, this latest episode has nothing to do with faith schools. As far as I understand it, government funding to faith schools is not being used to support external organisations. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, as a totally separate entity from the government, is free to invest its money as it sees fit. On the contrary, government money, as previously argued on this blog, could and should be used to impose certain conditions on faith schools, such as equality training, anti-bullying policies etc.
The issue at stake here is the moral dilemma the Catholic Church is ignoring. The Church considers the foetus as a human life and abortion as murder, it follows that one would be guilty of murder under whatever circumstances (except in case of danger to the mother's life). Furthermore, the Church would argue that the foetus is not responsible for the violence perpetrated on the mother. On the other hand, it can be argued that forcing victims of rape and incest to continue their pregnancy is a further violence and humiliation. In this instance, Amnesty International are asking for safe and legal abortions when sought by victims of rape or incest. This means that abortions are being carried out every day and this is because victims of rape and incest do not want to continue the pregnancy. Yet, by not having access to safe abortion, many of them die. A moral dilemma is facing the choice between two evils, not between good and evil. As such, if you know that a person who is a victim of rape/incest, is seeking an abortion, would you make sure that she has access to a safe abortion or would you let her undergo an unsafe procedure carrying a high risk to her life? Is an absolute principle worth so many lives? These are the questions that should be put to the hierarchy, not a blanket boycott of faith schools.

Faith schools ought to be funded by the government

With the document ‘Faith in the System’, the Government is moving to support more faith schools, in particular for ‘under-represented religious groups. As reported by the BBC:

"The government recognises that, in relation to the overall size of their populations, there are relatively few faith school places in the maintained sector available to Muslim, Sikh and Hindu children compared to the provision available for Christian and Jewish families."

I have nothing against faith schools per se. In fact I’m all in favour of schools who try to instil some meaning and sense of purpose in their pupils. There are, nevertheless, some issues that need to be addressed and can only be addressed if the schools are not fully independent. This means that it's better is faith schools are funded or partly funded by the government.

Inclusion: faith-schools should be allowed to give precedence to pupils from the school’s religion, otherwise what’s the point of going to a faith school? Besides, by imposing quotas, you can incur in discrimination by possibly excluding pupils from religious households. I would quite like integrated schools like in Northern Ireland. Pupils learn about their own religion, but also about others’ and have common sessions such as school assembly. Most importantly, however, the best times for pupils to mix are for play and sport. Sharing common spaces, such as sports’ facilities, should be relatively easy and would even cut costs. I should think ditching the school uniform (at play & sport time) would be a good thing too, so that pupils would be prone to mix instead of keeping with the crowd wearing the same uniform.
Employment: I can’t see why faith schools should not favour teachers who profess their own religion. Some unions say that this would impinge on the quality of the staff. I assume faith schools want good results and would not jeopardise that in order to employ someone from their religion despite his/her lack of talent.
Curriculum: in government funded schools Ofsted/Estyn inspectors should be able to raise objections if the school goes crazy and starts teaching creationism. There are no controls for independent schools.
Privacy: I have been searching over the internet but I couldn’t find anything specific on the law regulating employment by religious organisations. Every now and then, I come across some cases where a person was sacked or refused employment for being homosexual. If the organisation received government grants, this should not be possible.
Human rights: there have also been cases where women seemed to have been discriminated against in their employment. This issue needs to be clarified and resolved. For religions where women are not allowed to exercise certain functions, discrimination should not be allowed for all other posts. (It would be time for them to change policies, but that might take some time…)
Religion: the tricky part of all this is to determine what constitutes faith precepts, theological doctrines or organisational policies. There are many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc., I would not want a codification of policies that would assume the value of dogmas. I think flexibility needs to be exercised and the government should push for it. This means that regardless of one’s denomination or level of practice, one should not be discriminated.

There seems to be a prejudice against religious schools as hot-beds of bigotry. There's plenty of bigotry outside!
The point is to look at the issues calmly and have a commitment from the government and religious groups that discriminatory practices against homosexuals and women would not be carried out, that there will be strong anti-bullying policies, including homophobic bullying, equality training for all the staff etc. Would the government impose any conditions for funding?

Liberal? It's all in the mind err... brain!

Research by psychologist David Amodio found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives. As reported in the Chicago Tribune:

The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking. "Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there's a detour and you need to override your autopilot," said Amodio, a professor at New York University. "Most people function just fine. But there's a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course."
That "cue" is processed in a part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex, and Amodio was able to monitor its electrical activity by hooking his subjects up to electroencephalographs (EEGs) while they performed laboratory tests.

I wouldn't make too much of this, but I would definitely say that some people are very rigid in their thinking, be they rightwing or leftwing. They think in black & white terms and cannot manage complexities. It’s all for or against, soft or tough, with no understanding of the issues and no clue on how to solve it. Their brain’s ‘wiring’ might make it more difficult to see the issue from different perspectives and take into account variables and consequences, but surely not impossible. Attributing too much importance to biology risks obfuscating our human nature, which is indeed very complex and dependent on many factors. It is those who make too much of our biological/genetic/chemical make up, as determinant of behaviour and ideas, that might have an inflexible cortex. But then again, I'm liberal!