Religion and Politics
To us in the United Kingdom it seems strange how high a profile religion has in the political life of the United States. Three of those competing to become the Republican candidate in the next presidential election were happy, at a recent primary debate, to state that they did not believe in Darwinian evolution. On the Democratic side, prominent would-be candidates for the presidency have a full-time member of staff targeting religious voters. The contrast with the United Kingdom is dramatic, as was illustrated when, a few years ago, a top Government adviser bluntly ruled out discussion of religion.
In fact, it seems, only a few months ago did a member of the American Congress admit, for the first time, to being an atheist. He is Democrat Pete Stark, of California, who is quoted on the BBC News website as stating, “Who can say more rosaries than the next person in a certain given amount of time hardly seems to me to be a qualification [for office]. I’d like to hear much more specifics about how they plan to get us universal health care.” Certainly false religion, and Romanism in particular, is no recommendation for a politician; but neither is the profession to have no religion. Yet what is unusual for British eyes is a situation where an explicit profession of religion is seen as an advantage in politics.
Data published by the University of Michigan in 1997 showed that 53% of Americans said that religion is very important in their lives, compared with only 16% in Britain. Yet the quality of American Protestantism is, sadly,
highly doubtful. For instance, a 1980s survey indicated that more than half of the students at Evangelical colleges and seminaries believed that “the Bible is the inspired Word of God, not mistaken in its teachings, but is not always to be taken literally in its statements concerning matters of science, historical reporting, etc” (quoted in Michael Horton, Made in America, the shaping of modern American Evangelicalism, p 151). It is playing with words to call students Evangelical who have no more confidence than this in the accuracy of the Bible. They have no right to the expression, though one must acknowledge that the word is very often used in a very weak sense. And, sadly, one can have no reason for any confidence that the situation has improved in the last two decades.
The one UK region where religion is prominent in politics is Northern Ireland. Uniquely, it now has a strongly-Protestant First Minister at the head of its government. Following many years of extremely forceful opposition to Roman Catholic involvement in the government of the province, Rev Ian Paisley is now in partnership with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, who belongs to the organisation Mr Paisley so often derided as Sinn Fein-IRA. One has to ask if Mr Paisley’s opposition could survive the opportunity to get his hands on the levers of power.
It is particularly galling to many who were once his strongest supporters that his Stormont department will in the current year be distributing £180 000 to homosexual groups. The system which makes the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister responsible for equality issues in Ulster was set up by the Westminster government, but the fact remains that this Office is working closely with the Coalition on Sexual Orientation, which represents a number of homosexual groups, and its “sexual orientation strategy and action plan” was due to be published this summer.
Clearly no one claiming to have been called to preach the gospel should be involved in politics; yet Mr Paisley has been heavily involved in party politics for many years. He could never have been considered Reformed in his doctrine, but he did appear to have sound Protestant principles. These principles seem quite inconsistent with his present position.
Consultant Cleared of Euthanasia
A consultant neonatalogist at the Aberdeen Maternity Hospital was cleared of misconduct in July by the General Medical Council (GMC). Dr Munro had on two occasions administered 23 times the standard dose of a muscle relaxant called Pancuronium to dying babies. During the hearing, the GMC lawyer described his action as “tantamount to euthanasia”. Doubts were raised about the treatment after the second incident, and Dr Munro told the resulting
inquiry that he had never administered Pancuronium in similar circumstances before. The inquiry discovered, however, that he had administered the drug to the first baby in very similar circumstances six months earlier. The GMC panel ruled that it “was not satisfied so as to be sure that [Dr Munro’s] conduct was inappropriate”, because “there was a lack of clear, specific professional guidance”. His denial that he had administered the drug before was found to be “misleading” but the allegation that it was dishonest was “not proven”.
In both cases the babies had had their treatment withdrawn prior to death. In the second case, one of Dr Munro’s colleagues stated in written testimony that Dr Munro was wrong to stop the baby’s care. “If withdrawal of care is being discussed, it merited discussion with a senior colleague. I wouldn’t have agreed with withdrawal of care at the time. It’s possible the baby could have survived.” The readiness to hasten death, and to excuse the hastening of death, is one of our national sins at present. “Shall not I visit them for these things? saith the Lord: shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this” (Jer 9:9). DWBS