My religious beliefs may determine any decisions I make about my own life. However you don’t have to allow my religious beliefs to influence your decisions, and I have no right to impose my beliefs on you.
It's nice to hear why people hold their positions clearly, but I don't agree we need to hear at length about religious principles. Most people are going to say they respect your view but aren't religious and simply move on. You can't argue with faith
If someone else's religious position has led to a different conclusion then you can have a theological discussion, but most people in the room are going to see this as an angels on the head of a pin debate
Is it not quite likely to be the case that a significant number of those who feel this way felt the "no" vote's cause would be better served by letting the debate focus on the issues with the bill that would be most likely to persuade wavering colleagues? That is, they may have concluded that the arguments against that others were making were likely to be more persuasive than "God says this is bad" to people they knew didn't share that principled objection.
It's not a good look to assume that people who disagree with your position are hiding their faith. (Just as assuming that they are being politically expedient because of protecting their seat in areas with high religiosity - another argument I've heard).
My impression was that the people against the bill conceded some of the supporters' points. Whereas those in favour tended to dismiss their opponents as lacking compassion, of being zealots, or in your charge, of dishonesty.
You're already 'delighted'. Perhaps you'll have to manage without the complete victory over your opponents that you seem to be needing
I am not surprised that some supporters of the Bill feel the arguments against were sometimes tinged with dishonesty. The lead speaker against the Bill was Danny Kruger. He was interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight earlier in the week (25 Nov) when he made a number of statements which are blatantly not true, including the following:
* The bill allows government officials to conclude that some people would be better off dead.
* Anybody who wants to end their life could theoretically qualify.
* Anyone who is frail, disabled or near the end of life would be obliged to have a conversation [about assisted dying].
* We would be saying that some people have a new human right.
Those MPs who are in favour of the Bill tend to have one simple argument: to allow people to choose to end their own suffering. Those MPs who oppose the Bill on moral grounds seem generally to have realised that they would be asking other MPs (the majority as it turns out) to accept that the opponents' morals outweigh other people's suffering. Danny Kruger clearly recognised that would never succeed and so he took a different approach.
It was apparent from his opening remarks in the BBC interview that Kruger is against the Bill on moral grounds, but he was limiting himself to practical arguments in an attempt to win support. That appears to have been a tactic followed by many other opponents of the Bill. The result was that so many of them advanced supposedly “practical” objections which, if taken at face value, invited the unfortunate conclusion that they were (in Jeremy Nye’s words) lacking in compassion or being dishonest.
For those MPs who had genuine concerns about the practicalities, there was a clear third way: vote for the Bill to go through to the next stage so that the practicalities can be amended … and then make a final decision.
I broadly agree.
My position is very simple.
My religious beliefs may determine any decisions I make about my own life. However you don’t have to allow my religious beliefs to influence your decisions, and I have no right to impose my beliefs on you.
It's nice to hear why people hold their positions clearly, but I don't agree we need to hear at length about religious principles. Most people are going to say they respect your view but aren't religious and simply move on. You can't argue with faith
If someone else's religious position has led to a different conclusion then you can have a theological discussion, but most people in the room are going to see this as an angels on the head of a pin debate
Is it not quite likely to be the case that a significant number of those who feel this way felt the "no" vote's cause would be better served by letting the debate focus on the issues with the bill that would be most likely to persuade wavering colleagues? That is, they may have concluded that the arguments against that others were making were likely to be more persuasive than "God says this is bad" to people they knew didn't share that principled objection.
It's not a good look to assume that people who disagree with your position are hiding their faith. (Just as assuming that they are being politically expedient because of protecting their seat in areas with high religiosity - another argument I've heard).
My impression was that the people against the bill conceded some of the supporters' points. Whereas those in favour tended to dismiss their opponents as lacking compassion, of being zealots, or in your charge, of dishonesty.
You're already 'delighted'. Perhaps you'll have to manage without the complete victory over your opponents that you seem to be needing
I am not surprised that some supporters of the Bill feel the arguments against were sometimes tinged with dishonesty. The lead speaker against the Bill was Danny Kruger. He was interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight earlier in the week (25 Nov) when he made a number of statements which are blatantly not true, including the following:
* The bill allows government officials to conclude that some people would be better off dead.
* Anybody who wants to end their life could theoretically qualify.
* Anyone who is frail, disabled or near the end of life would be obliged to have a conversation [about assisted dying].
* We would be saying that some people have a new human right.
Those MPs who are in favour of the Bill tend to have one simple argument: to allow people to choose to end their own suffering. Those MPs who oppose the Bill on moral grounds seem generally to have realised that they would be asking other MPs (the majority as it turns out) to accept that the opponents' morals outweigh other people's suffering. Danny Kruger clearly recognised that would never succeed and so he took a different approach.
It was apparent from his opening remarks in the BBC interview that Kruger is against the Bill on moral grounds, but he was limiting himself to practical arguments in an attempt to win support. That appears to have been a tactic followed by many other opponents of the Bill. The result was that so many of them advanced supposedly “practical” objections which, if taken at face value, invited the unfortunate conclusion that they were (in Jeremy Nye’s words) lacking in compassion or being dishonest.
For those MPs who had genuine concerns about the practicalities, there was a clear third way: vote for the Bill to go through to the next stage so that the practicalities can be amended … and then make a final decision.