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).

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.

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.

Best Christmas card ever!

I find Christmas cards a bit impersonal. It's customary, but I get lots of them from lots of people, more as a matter of form. I prefer substance to form.
I prefer people remembering my birthday. Above all, I don't understand why people who know me don't cross the word Christmas on the card and write Chanukah for a change!!!
Anyway, here is the best Christmas card ever!!

Is Christmas under attack?

Zaki Cooper, on the Guardian reminds us that 'some of the staunchest supporters of Christmas come from other religions'. 'Support' seems to imply that Christmas is somehow under the prospect of being cancelled. Undoubtedly renaming Christmas ‘Winterval’, as Birmingham Council did some years ago, allegedly not to offend people of other faiths, is simply barmy. However, this does not mean in any way that Christmas is under attack. One could make the argument that people are, in general, less religious and therefore Christmas is not being celebrated religiously as in the past. Personally, I think religion is back on the scene so I don’t think that is the case. Purists might say that decorated trees and Coca-cola red Santas have nothing to do with Christmas. It is true that the decorated tree became the ‘Christmas’ tree after the Victorians decided to revive an old pagan custom. It is also true that the familiar face of Santa has been spread around the world by Coca-Cola, although it was originally invented by cartoonist Thomas Nast in 1862. However, why should we snub these symbols? Christmas and other celebrations are the result of the inevitable mix of pagan, Christian, and now commercial, images. It is what keeps celebrations relevant and alive throughout time. After all, Christmas replaced previous pagan celebrations and, I assume, inherited the need for lights in the middle of winter when the days are short and cold. That’s pretty much why Jews celebrate Chanukkah, the festival of lights. What is problematic though is the loneliness that comes with Christmas. While the rest of the world celebrates with presents, food, company, suicides increase significantly. Perhaps Christmas and Chanukah should be about bringing some light into the lives of the people around us. This reminds me I’m supposed to make some latkes for a friend!!!

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.

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?

Islamism and the war of words

Islam, terrorism, fundamentalism, are too often used inappropriately, the war of words has started. With so many journalists turned writers covering difficult topics such as terrorism, picking on the shoddy use of language and terminology has never been easier.
Jason Burke, on the Observer, chose an unfortunate way of publicising his book: he contested ‘terror’s lexicon’. The poor thing amply provides entertainment to the pedant by suggesting a rather odd locution to replace the term Islamism. Burke uses 986 words in his article and yet miserably fails to provide any grounds, let alone theory, in support of his choice for ‘modern Islamic militancy’. In fact, I wonder whether he is aware of the meaning of these three words.
Modern: it does not mean contemporary! Modern is a rather contested term depending on the field in which it is applied. Modernity refers to different periods of time. In sociology, modernity is taken as the period between the XIX and XX century, when under the thrust of industrialisation, the prevalent conception of society was transformed and the autonomous individual emerged.
Islamic: (literally) it means anything related to Islam.
Militancy: a very unfortunate term to use as it derives from miles, soldier.

By not putting forward any theory or adequate explanation behind the choice of this terminology, Burke leaves us with the literal reading of ‘modern Islamic militancy’ as ‘armies professing the Islamic faith or from Islamic countries or cultural background, whose ideology sees the individual at the centre’. Oops! This is unlikely to be what he meant!
In contrast, the term Islamism emphasises the fundamentalist character of the ideology behind terrorist violence as perpetrated by Al-Quaeda and other groups or individuals. As such, Islamism can be taken to indicate a fundamentalist ideology that interprets (and I would say perverts) Islam in adversarial (and Manichean) terms vis-à-vis the Western world. It does not necessarily lead to violent action, which can take many forms, such as international terrorism, local guerrilla insurgency, terrorist acts carried out by individuals etc. This, of course, would also benefit from systematisation. There's a difference between reporting conflict, terrorism etc. and analysing them!

Shiny happy people … humbug!

It might be because it’s a rather rough period for me, but I thought of scribbling something about 'positive people', all those Pollyanna thinkers who repeat the nonsensical mantras of ‘looking on the bright side’ and ‘having a positive attitude’. (I suppose it ties in with my post on being nice). I believe there’s a fundamental misconception at the core of this pseudo-philosophy. They seem to believe that if one has a positive attitude, life will be easier and better; and they even explain ‘bad luck’ or lack of success as a result of one’s attitude. Humbug!
Let’s be clear about this: if one is a castaway at sea, it’s bad luck, karma, destiny, (whatever you want to call it), it is not dependent on one’s attitude. One’s attitude can, indeed, improve one’s chances of survival, but that’s more to do with ‘keeping cool’ in a difficult situation, mastering one’s knowledge and abilities to be able to survive. It is not about being optimistic, which is a feature of one’s character.
Where’s God in all of this?
I believe that events are less important than what one does with them. It is our perception of what happens that gives meaning to it and to our life. Optimism and pessimism are equally pernicious in obfuscating one’s sight. Things happen in our reality plane (the world of action, objective reality etc.), but there are also parallel events happening in other planes, including our mind. It is our job to analyse the situation objectively but also to see it in all its aspects.
I strive to see God behind everything that happens to me (which is difficult enough, never mind what happens to others!) and to transform the bad into the good. Most of the time, it comes as a fleeting realisation, not more than a passing feeling, but it’s there. I find that only by ‘appropriating’ what happens, giving it meaning and ‘putting God in it’, I can make some sense. I don’t believe in the off the shelf philosophy ‘life is good’ or ‘life is bad’. The point is that we’re alive. We might as well live and be partners in creation by giving meaning and acting accordingly. It is our insight that gets us closer to God, not our attitude.
I have this image of God smiling at all those combative stubborn people who don’t go around with slogans, are not shiny happy people, but criticise. That’s how you change things. Besides, shiny happy people don’t get irony!

The Politics of God - yet more nonsense

Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:

1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?

Religion - what is it all about?

There seem to be people out there attempting to counterbalance anti-religious polemic unfolding on bookstores and newpapers in (mainly) the UK and the US by providing sociological and anthropological interpretations. In ‘The sacred and the human’ in Prospect Magazine, Roger Scruton gives us the anthropological interpretation of religion, while Peter Thompson goes the Ernst Bloch way in the Guardian's Face to Faith. It takes all sorts!
For Thompson, religious belief is the response to humanity's existential sense of loss and need for 'home'. Citing Bloch, Thompson states that

"what drives us forward is the paradoxical desire to find our way back to somewhere we have never been: home."

However, most ideologies serve this purpose. This interpretation does not shed any light on the continuous appeal of religion and the difference between religious faith and secular ideologies.
Scruton writes a long essay on Girard, but he seems to think that religious scriptures were understood literally until Voltaire & Co. came along to enlighten us. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scriptures start to be taken literally in the XIX century with fundamentalist movements reacting against modern science. Before that, ‘God’s word’ was always deemed as in need of exegesis precisely because it was taken as 'the word of God'. In this sense, religious ‘doctrine’ is about the meaning of creation not creation as a historical event.
Anthropology of religion plays an important role in aiding our understanding of culture and humanity’s understanding of itself. However, both sociology and anthropology of religion, have been at the forefront of the current reductionist view of religion, which sees religion, at best, as an attempt to make sense of the world, and, at worst, as a delusion. Contrary to what Scruton and Thompson suggest, religion is most definitely about God. Religious faith and theology point to the infinite and to the absolute truth. It is the human attempt to go beyond culture, society and physical reality in order to find the universal and transcendent in our being. By declaring human beings as participating in God’s infinity, religious belief transcends mortality. Perhaps this is what anti-religious polemicists find so annoying: the ability to think ourselves beyond our physical reality.

Circumcision - what's your view?

The FT magazine today carries an article on the potential health benefits of circumcision. The author stays clear from taking a side in this rather controversial topic. I won’t comment on the religious meaning of it, partly because I believe that most religious practices are vested with religious meaning once they have become customary for whatever reason (political, sanitary, social …). Circumcision, dietary laws, dress (of whatever religion) were not ‘invented’ by a religion, rather they were employed by the religious authorities/community and have thus received spiritual meaning. This does not mean that I consider them devoid of religious meaning or value. I just think that it’s up to you! And I won’t state where I stand personally (and theologically) because I’m not that sure and as I’m female I don’t need to worry!
There are Jews and Muslims, though, who would advocate circumcision on hygienic grounds rather than religious grounds. I believe this is an apologetic stance aimed at rationalising something that touches one’s emotions deeply. So what’s the evidence?

"In March, the World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) urged countries to consider implementing circumcision programmes to combat Aids. The scientific basis for that statement was the combined evidence from three substantial clinical trials conducted in Africa that compared the rate with which circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men contracted HIV. The studies – one in South Africa, another in Kenya and a third in Uganda – showed that men who had been circumcised had a roughly 60 per cent lower risk of becoming HIV positive than their uncircumcised counterparts."

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, yes, but as Tim Hargreave, a urologist from Edinburgh, who has written the WHO/UNAids manual on performing circumcisions, explains in the article:

“In countries with high prevalence of HIV, cost-benefit analyses would suggest circumcising this group is the most cost-effective thing that can be done.”

What about Western countries?

"Most mainstream medical societies’ positions on the practice broadly agree: in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, the relevant bodies say that, for the most part, there is no good clinical reason to subject infants to it. “There is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision,” the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, although it adds that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections (which affect fewer than 2 per cent of boys) and penile cancer, which affects one in 100,000 men in developed countries. Balanced against a complication rate from circumcision of up to 5 per cent, the Australian doctors say, it just isn’t worth it."

Percentages aside, what is interesting is that there are very strong views on both sides. It is also interesting to note, as the article mentions, that the prudish Victorians were quite keen on circumcision as they turned against the foreskin with vengeance and blame it "for everything from syphilis to masturbation and bed-wetting."
In my view, in the context of a contemporary Western liberal democracy, circumcision has very little to do with health and very much to do with religion and sexuality, gender and identity. But I'd like to hear your view.
That aside, it seems rather obvious to me that better hygiene, starting from the regular use of the bidet, is essential. I wonder whether there’ll ever be a study establishing the percentage of risk as a result of poor hygiene. In the meantime, wash your bits!