Unseparation of church and state
A few days ago I criticised Cardinal George Pell over his plans to force educators in Catholic schools (which receive government funding) to take a "vow of fidelity". It seems that compelling educators to surrender their intellect and will to the church is not enough for Pell. He'd like politicians to do the same or face the "consequences".
The NSW parliament is debating repealing the ban on therapeutic cloning, with a conscience vote expected tonight. It is hoped that research, presently prevented by the ban, may lead to cures for serious and debilitating conditions. However, curing disease by using stem cells does not sit well with the catholic doctrine, which holds that life begins at conception (what happens to that life afterwards appears to be of far less interest to the church).
Cardinal Pell seems to have decided that it was legitimate for him to force his religious doctrine on Australian legislators. In what can only be described as a threat, he warned the MPs subscribing to Catholic faith that there would be "consequences" if they vote to overturn the ban. What those consequences are is unclear. Pell has apparently declined to reveal whether he was threatening to excommunicate those MPs who dared to cast their vote in accordance with what they think is in the interest of their electorate rather than what is in accordance with the catholic faith. Perhaps he was alluding to the fires of hell rather than any earthly sanction.
The point is that Pell's conduct is quite extraordinary. He would be the first to complain of political interference in church doctrine if such interference occurred. No doubt he would make an eloquent argument about the need for the separation of church and state, about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and about how politicians should not interfere in matters of faith. And he'd be right. However the separation of church and state is a two way street. Politicians should stay out of religious doctrine and ministers of religion should stay out of politics (unless of course they are elected to political office). Pell's conduct reveals a contempt for the institution of parliament and a disrespect for the electorate. Voters elect their representatives on the basis of their policies (most of the time anyway), not on the basis of their religious belief. Pell's attempt to coerce parliamentarians to vote in accordance with religious doctrine shows a disregard for this principle.
Lets not forget what happens when religion and politics or science merge. Lets take a look at the Islamic states, lets remember the religious wars, the Inquisition and religious violence through the history or the less violent, but no less instructive, story of Galileo. There too the catholic church wished to stand in the way of progress, insisting that the doctrine of men was the word of God and threatening "consequences" for following the path of progress rather than of religion.
Thanks for reading
RSS
