Are Catholics welcome in Labour?

Today is Good Friday, when Catholics commemorate the death of Christ on the cross with fasting and abstinence from meat. We have several Catholics as members of the Cabinet. The Daily Mail report this Good Friday is chilling to me as a Catholic and parliamentary candidate. It speculates that
Catholics in the Cabinet may either have to resign or be forced to commit a serious sin of scandal.

The Embryology bill wending its way through Parliament is anathema to Catholics, and I use the word advisedly. For months, Catholic churches across Britain have been praying for its defeat. Geoff Hoon, Labour's Chief Whip, is quoted in the "source close to" format, disgracefully, as saying Catholic members of the Cabinet must not prevent passage of this bill.

Let this Catholic lay it on the line for Messrs. Brown and Hoon. We don't whip conscience votes in this country. David Cameron has asked Brown twice at PMQs to repent of this disgusting violation of his colleagues' beliefs. It is not nearly enough for a Catholic to abstain on this bill. We are all honour bound to fight - and vote, if we can - against it. No faithful and believing Catholic, that is, one who follows the teaching of the Church as opposed to a "cultural Catholic", can do otherwise.

Over the Easter season, there is still time for Brown to decide if the message he wants to send to Catholic voters is:

"You may not follow your beliefs under my Government. Catholics are not welcome."

Comments

[West London Tory]

But will the Conservative Party oppose this Bill? Or will it, as on abortion, toe the liberal line?

[Burma Toad]

Good to see that "this Catholic" is spending the day in spirtual contemplation, eschewing temporal matters like party political point-sacoring along with meat.
It confirms what "this atheist" has always thought about left-footers dragging their personal and peculiar morality into politics.

[Louise Bagshawr]

WLT, the Conservatives will allow a free vote on the Bill for all our MPs. That's the only way to deal with conscience legislation.

[Iain]

Sorry Louise I must challenge your point, for though I feel it wrong for the Government to whip matters of conscience, I also feel it just as wrong for the Catholic church to seek to pressurise MP's to vote according to their Catholic conscience. This I believe is very bad news for our democracy, if not a corruption of our democracy, for our MP's are supposed to be our representatives, ALL our representatives, not the representatives of the Catholic church. For the Catholic church to strong arm MP’s to vote according to the Popes wishes brings sectarianism right onto the floor of Parliament, and to do that makes us all losers.

I am not a Catholic, but I gather my MP, Michael Ancram is , this never bothered me before, but since the Catholic church has started to meddle in our political life it now becomes an issue, and even if Michael Ancram’s priest carries no sway on his actions in Parliament, the seed of doubt has been sown in my mind, and it might demean us all but much more of this and I feel I should have to ask him the next time he’s looking for my vote as to whose conscience he follows, his of the Popes?. So the Pandora’s box of sectarianism has been opened, as such to limit the damage I feel Catholic MP’s should tell the Cardinal to shut up, not seek to wear their Catholicism so prominently.

[Christina Speight]

I am not a Roman Catholic but an Anglican deep in remembering that today we join with ALL other Christians to venerate Our Lord's sacrifice of himself for all of us. I have just returned from the observance of Christ's sufferings on this day so long ago by following the Stations of the Cross.

I regret that this Bill has come before parliament at all and I am glad that the Conservative Party will not do anything so obscene as to ask any member to vote on it against their conscience. To Iain let me say that all MPs should to vote according to their conscience - always - whether that conscience be informed by their Roman Catholic church, by my church or indeed by their humanist principles.

And moving from conscience to politics I also feel that our country would be a better place if all MPs always voted after making up their independent minds. The Whips as at present deployed are a menace to good governance for it absolves any government from the need to make a convincing case for their policies.

[Dominic Harvey]

What is special about the HF&E Bill that entitles members of the Labour Party (or indeed any other party for that matter) to a free vote on it? The fact that it goes against a system of beliefs held by certain members of the party means nothing.

Religion is not special. It is merely a system of beliefs, just as socialism or (arguably) conservatism is. I don't hear you clamouring for a free vote on all pieces of legislation, only this one, which just so happens to be one that clashes with your personal beliefs. Care to explain the double standard?

[Iain]

"To Iain let me say that all MPs should to vote according to their conscience -"

Agreed, but what's the difference between an MP being whipped to vote according to the Party line, and an MP having is arm twisted by his Priest to vote according to Churches wishes ? Not much in my view, in fact the latter my be worse, for the MP stood for office under a Party banner not his religion, as such for his religion to seek to hold sway over his actions in Parliament , is a corruption of our democracy, which as I say brings sectarianism to our Parliament.

[Steve R]

People don't care whether you're a Catholic or not. Can't you just take a view on an issue, and argue the merits of it, without all this Catholic moralising?

You're not special. We don't care. Get over it.

Most religious people pick and choose the bits they like.

[NorthernMonkey]

What a disgusting article from the shameless Louise Bagshawe. Thank goodness she doesn't have a hope in hell's chance of winning in Corby.

Are Catholics welcome in Labour? Well you should know Louise given that you were a member of the party when Blair was in charge.

What was it you said about Blair that you liked? That he was "socially liberal but an economic Tory"? Not so socially liberal anymore are we Louise?

Interesting that you don't agree with Cabinet members taking orders from the Prime Minister, yet you're quite happy for them to take orders from the bigoted Catholic hierarchy. How principled of you.

[Tony Makara]

I think moral issues should go well beyond relgious parochialism. I am not a catholic but I've very much opposed to abortion and euthanasia, however I do support capital punishment because I believe the sentence reflects the crime. I am always puzzled that catholics are hostile to contraception which is a good thing in population control and preventing disease. The actions of catholic politicians often perplex me, like Ruth Kelly who takes an admirable stand on abortion yet voted eagerly to drop bombs on the heads of Iraqi children? How does her conscience rationalize that away? As a protestant I was told at school, by the headteacher no less, that catholics have two personalities, one for confession and one for the rest of the week. Of course I think that statement was just a little overt orangeism. Nontheless the catholic MP does seem to get lost in the moral maze more often than the non-catholic. Scripture does warn against having two masters.

[Christina Speight]

I am sorry to see the bitterness in Steve R:. I am sad for him. Jesus died upon the cross around 1976 years ago for you too. You may reject him, but her'll never reject you.

And, Dominic Harvey, one's faith and belief in the Risen Christ is not remotely like a political theory. The latter is a priori something essentially ephemeral . Religion is special - very special. So special, indeed, that people even today are willing to emulate Our Lord and to be prepared to die for their beliefs. To expose :your logic to a measure of ridicule can you imagine anyone dying for the leader (pro-tem) of any political party?

To Iain I would say that conscience to a Christian is between them and God, The priest may advise and cajole sometimes (more in the Roaman church than in mine) . So I say to your picture of "an MP having is arm twisted by his Priest to vote according to Churches wishes" that such a picture is fantasy - subservience is not obligatory! God gave us a conscience and it is our Church's duty to inform that conscience but the Church cannot control it.

[NorthernMonkey]

Christina - Jesus did not die on the cross for anyone. The whole thing's made up, so kindly stop lecturing people who have demonstrated more independent thought than yourself.

[Steve R]

Christina - catch a grip. Leave this stuff for church. There's enough mad chat on here already.

[m dowding]

NorthernMonkey, name says it all. Labour Troll par excellence and typical atheist leftie. Jesus Christ was as real as Gordon Brown eating his own nasal product. God may be hard for some to believe in but faith will long outlive mankind.

[Iain]

"So I say to your picture of "an MP having is arm twisted by his Priest to vote according to Churches wishes" that such a picture is fantasy "

Well it wasn't fantasy Cardinal Cormack Murphy O'Connor sought to intervene in Parliamentary matters when he suggested that Scottish MP's not voting to the Catholic churches wishes should be denied confession, or something like that.

[Dominic Harvey]

Christina: So the intensity with which beliefs are held (which could also be interpreted as stubbornness) by people should determine parliamentary procedure? The fact that individuals within the PLP (or PCP) believe a certain thing means nothing. Either free votes on everything or free votes on nothing, surely?

[Paul]

Northern Monkey - "Jesus did not die on the cross for anyone. The whole thing's made up"

Quite a damning exposition of Christianity, I am sure you will have convinced all believers of their misguided ways. Every MP should vote according to their conscience and all Catholic MP's should oppose this monstorous bill not just abstain. This Labour government has been the most anti-Catholic administration since the Ultra-Tories of the 1820's.

[Sean Fear]

"What a disgusting article from the shameless Louise Bagshawe. Thank goodness she doesn't have a hope in hell's chance of winning in Corby."

LOL! That really is the view from the Bunker.

[NorthernMonkey]

m dowding - yes, I'm a northerner. I'm sorry, I forgot that people from any further north than Oxford are barred from the Conservative party.

And you're a typical right-wing religious fruitcake constantly trying to force your bigoted views on the intelligent majority.

Faith is in permanent decline and you know it. The Conservative party will become the last bastion of the evangelicals, which will hopefully kill the party off for good.

[Ben Stevenson]

I am strongly pro-life. This is one of the main issues why I will not vote for Labour at the next election. I want a pro-life party I could vote for instead. In our current system of party politics, I would rather have political parties take a stand on important issues, and then I can vote for the party that I agree with.

If an MP disagrees with the party on a serious issue I think it would be better for them to vote against their party, and let the electorate decide if they are happy with the decision, either at proper party primaries, or at elections against other parties. I don't think this issue should be given a special status to protect people's conscience.

[Christina Speight]

Iain - you say "or something like that" . Eh? come off it. You'll have to do better than that. The Cardinal in question is not responsible for Scotland, And even the RC Church isn't either as powerful or monolithic as you suggest.

But to the militant atheists here I can only say that that firstly Jesus Christ and the crucifixion were historical figures and the despatches of Pontius Pilate prove that!

Steve R:- The Christian gospel isn't all that mad and as in any month something of the order of 8 million Christians attend Church they massively outnumber those who attend football matches. Christians are well used to arguing the toss with intelligent non-believers but can take cheap ill-informed abuse in our stride! And I'm not going to "leave this stuff for church." "This stuff" as you sneeringly dismiss it is the stuff of morals and doing what's right. I'll happily discuss it but not with somebody so bigoted and with such a closed mind. Church is not somewhere separate - in my locality it is the centrepiece of the community and a vibrant place.

Dominic Harvey: I've already said that the whole "whipping" system is wrong so we agree on that, it might seem. And agreeing with an ephemeral political policy is nothing to do with true belief - or as I prefer "faith". All politicians end in failure it is said.

[Ben Stevenson]

Northern Monkey: "Faith is in permanent decline and you know it."

No. Evangelical Christianity is growing across the world, including the UK.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/uk.church.growing.faster.than.starbucks./5059.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/25/nevang25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/08/25/ixportal.html

[Sean Fear]

"This Labour government has been the most anti-Catholic administration since the Ultra-Tories of the 1820's."

No, it's anti-Christian, rather than anti-Catholic, as such.

Northern Monkey's comments here help to explain why Labour's going down the drain. Catholics have been a bastion of Labour support for 100 years, and if the party's happy to drive them away, and think that militant atheists will make good that loss, wll, I'll be very happy to see them continue in that vein.

[Christina Speight]

Ben Stevenson is quite right. In Britain the Roman Church has had a boost from East European immigration but is perfectly healthy. Evangelical churches are more diverse as the term is not precise but they are growing. The Church of England is quite healthy too except in a few problem areas. My own parish is at an all-time high with extra services and 3 clergy. It organises enormous charity works here and abroad. It also has built for the use of all local people a wonderful new church hall and early arrival is recommended on all feast day services - or you stand! Drama and music locally centre on the church and our annual two day fete got 30,000 visitors. Dying? Not on your nelly!

[Andrew Lilico]

Not whipping people on matters of religious conviction is a matter of maintaining party discipline, for the most you can do to someone by making him defy the party line is withdraw the whip and end his career in your party, but the most that can happen to someone voting against his god is that he lose his soul to eternal damnation. This particular calculus tends to lead, unsurprisingly, to people defying the whip and if necessary resigning their governmental posts. Only a foolish leader would push matters so far if he could possibly avoid it.

As far as this question of the influence of priests god, I think we need to distinguish between two types of influence. In the one case the priest is an intermediary between an earthly power - the Prince of Rome - and someone with political position in Britain, seeking to exercise temporal rule - spreading Roman Christendom, if you like. When this used to happen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was a problem, and led to all kinds of restrictions upon Catholic involvement in public life.

In contrast, if all that the priest is doing is to impress upon his flock, including MPs and Cabinet Ministers - exactly what Catholic doctrine is, and pointing out to them the consequences of violating Catholic doctrine (e.g. losing communion if they vote for the killing of infants - which is surely what *should* happen under the normal rules of the Catholic church; after all, if you lose communion by remarrying after divorce, you should surely lose communion by supporting the killing of infants!), then that is just an informational point, in respect of spiritual matters. That is surely an integral part of what priests are *for*!

[Sean Fear]

"Jesus Christ was as real as Gordon Brown eating his own nasal product."

I would love to hear someone preach a someone on that.

[Sean Fear]

sermon, even.

[Iain]

"if you lose communion by remarrying after divorce, you should surely lose communion by supporting the killing of infants!), then that is just an informational point, in respect of spiritual matters. That is surely an integral part of what priests are *for*!"

And if an MP's conscience is dictated to by the teachings of his faith, then he should make that clear when pitching for peoples votes.

[NorthernMonkey]

Ben Stevenson, I hardly think articles from 'Christian Today' and the Torygraph qualify as unbiased accounts of the state of faith in the United Kingdom.

As you know, faith is receeding from public life more and more. It won't be too long before we see a separation of Church and State. The upcoming changes in the Embryology bill will pass comfortably whether on a free vote or not and these days we can even gamble on Good Friday!

Now excuse me Ben, I'm off to the bookies to make a quick bet on how many years it will be until Christianity becomes defunct in the UK. I'm betting 10?

[Andrew Lilico]

As regards the other silly atheistic comments here, well, my politics is driven (like the rest of my life) by my commitment to Jesus Christ. Christianity is not some private indulgence that I will be quiet about except on Sundays. Politically, I am first and foremost a subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, but Christianity requires me to operate within the world and to attempt (insofar as my gifts and providence allows) to mould the institutions and operations of this world along Christian lines. This means, for example, that my politics must
- treat all people as equal, for the Bible teaches us that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, man or woman, slave or free, but all are one before God.
- respect man's freedom to commit sin, just as God respects it
- tolerate differences, as far as is possible, for I hope that Christians (who have always been as small minority in virtually any society) will be tolerated in pursuing our own strange beliefs and practices and even within the Church we seek unity (i.e. Catholicism - as an Anglican I am a Catholic even if not a Roman)
- respect innocent life, for we must not commit murder and we must not sacrifice our children to Baal or Asheroth as others do
- offer people protection from theft
- facilitate the honouring of the elderly
- offer systems of protection or compensation from adultery and similar betrayal
- offer systems that subject accusations to challenge (due process for defendants), so as offer people protection from false witness
- promote the principle that redemption and forgiveness are always possible. Criminals must be able to return to society; errant politicians must be able to make come-backs; bankrupt businessmen must be able to try again; the misdemeanours of youth must be able to be forgotten;
and many other such things.

I may sometimes seek other ways to defend and promote these ideas than by saying that a society of this sort is pleasing to my god - indeed, that these things seems independently attractive to me is precisely one of the reasons I find worshipping the Christian God attractive - but let no-one be under any illusion that British politics is as it is because it has been moulded by Anglican Christianity through the device of the Tory, Whig, and Conservative Parties, with some important Catholic and non-conformist input. Ours is a Christian State, even if not (sadly) a Christian state.

[IRJMilne]

Aren't we lucky to have people like Northern Monkey in this country, whose wonderful atheism has produced such loveable doctrines as nazism (worship of race), communism (worship of government), fascism (worship of nationalism), and anarchism (worship of destruction and chaos). Without people like this, where would civilization be?

As for no-one from the north being allowed to be a Tory - last time I checked, Yorkshire was north of Oxford, and I think we had a party leader from there not so long ago?

We are meant to have free votes on issues of conscience. It is bad enough having the amount of whipping that we already have on most issues. Brown is setting a very unfortunate precedent which opens up the way for the final conquest of democracy by two small cliques of professional politicians.

[david]

As someone brought up a Catholic, Catholic schools etc. but now an atheist, I find the Church's meddling in politics distasteful to say the least.

The RC church with its defence of priests guilty of sexual misbehaviour, is the last organisation to criticise anybody for anything.

As for Conservative Catholics, I haven't heard of one whose ever said, he/she won't be voting for Boris Johnson a man who committed a mortal sin by procuring an abortion for his mistress.

[Steve R]

Christina - if a man waited all his life to have a son, then when the son was born, he ritually slaughtered him, would he be mad or bad, or you would celebrate what a great thing he'd done?

I am fine with religion, but when you can only back it up with "faith" and not fact, I have no interest talking about it. It's a subject for another forum. Keep your faith out of politics, because your faith is not my faith, but I'm sure we agree on a lot.

Can we keep the discussion on why Catholics need to be given special consideration when it comes to discussing our laws? Can't we just discuss the merits?

[Andrew Lilico]

Steve R@17:55

Because your very question indicates that you don't understand the point. As far as I am aware, no-one is suggesting that "Catholics need to be given special consideration when it comes to discussing our laws". What the article is suggesting is that Catholics are being asked to resign from the Cabinet or imperil their immortal souls by voting in clear defiance of the teachings of their church. To my mind, that is really an internal disciplinary matter of the Labour Party over which I'm not qualified to comment. Gordon Brown can't *make* his Catholic MPs defy their church's clear teaching or to vote against their consciences. Obviously, as far as I can see, if he tries to whip the issue then they should refuse to vote as he asks, and if that means they must resign then they should resign and I shall respect them for it.

Beyond that, it's not much to do with me, except to note that if, in the last analysis, the Catholics are all forced to resign, then that will send out a very bad signal about the role of people of conscience in public life, and they will become more reluctant to involve themselves in the mainstream parties. If so, we must try to make clear our own welcoming of them.

[Sean Fear]

"but now an atheist, I find the Church's meddling in politics distasteful to say the least. "

Christianity is an ethical religion, so one would expect clergy to express opinions on ethical subjects, as and when they are debated in Parliament. In fact, they have a moral obligation to express such opinions.

Clergy have no reason to comment on issues that are purely technical- like what the composition of the House of Lords should be, or whether we should vote at weekends, as these aren't really ethical questions. Nor, in my view, should clergy instruct people on how to vote, as nothing in their training gives them any particular insight into that part of the political process.

In response to Northern Monkey's rather flippant and silly remarks, I can assure him that Christianity will certainly outlive the Labour Party.

[Iain]

"Gordon Brown can't *make* his Catholic MPs defy their church's clear teaching or to vote against their consciences."

Is it their consciences or the Catholic churches conscience, the two are different or should be different, that you have assumed the Catholic churches agenda should be their conscience underscores everything that is wrong about the Catholic churches meddling in our politics.

[David McEwan Hill]

Andrew Lilico. Fascism is not the worship of nationalism. Some nationalistic movements have been fascist, most have not. Fascism is the anti democratic exercise of power through a hierarchical structure which operates in a severely authoritarian manner.
All churches are obliged to speak out on what they believe. That is what they are for. There would be no point in them if they didn't. You don't have to listen. If you choose to be a Catholic you choose to follow its instructions. otherwise there would be no point in being a Catholic. Catholics have been the major element in putting the Labour party into power in Scotland for fifty years as they are concentrated in Scotland's well populated central belt and they make a majority of electors in some of Scotland's ex industrial areas and determine the election reult in about half of Scotland's seats.
The Catholic Church in Scotland is calling in the debt and more and more elements in it are moving towards the SNP.

[david]

Fascism is of course, primarily a Roman Catholic phenomenon.

[Steve R]

Andrew Lilico - How did the Catholics vote on Sunday trading, laws relating to homosexuality, or anything else that comes into conflict with the teachings of the Catholic church? Why did they enter politics if they can't distinguish between the secular and the moral/spiritual? Have they only suddenly realised that there is an internal conflict for them? Sorry, I have no sympathy for these people. I wish they'd resign, so I don't have to hear any more of their mad hat ideas.

[m dowding]

Given the significant comment to this topic it hardly suggests that Christianity will be defunct in 10 years. As to a sermon on Gordon Brown's disgusting habits, suffice to say that they are probably quite benign in public, compared to private! Takes "D" notices to hush those up.
As for "Monkey". Ignorant troll, I am a very long way NW of Oxford and proud to be who I am. Roll on the May elections, I say!

[m dowding]

Go back to LabourHome, Monkey, they are short of comment there, by goodness. Treat Trolls as traitors to a trash, trite, lost cause!

[comstock]

As a strict secularist, there is one part of this I find very disturbing.

Firstly I think we have to accept the first part"The legislation will permit lesbian couples to be registered as legal parents for the first time,"
So what?....in any case lesbian couples who want kids will have them by hook, crook or turkey baster and there is nowt the government can do to stop this.

"allow the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for scientific research"No, no, no. I don't agree with the church on much, but this is vile.

"and remove the requirement on IVF clinics to consider a child's need for a father. "
...What is that supposed to mean? If any fertile woman can go out and pregnant anytime she chooses by going out, getting drunk and sh*gging a man she barely knows then why should women who have fertility problems be denied the right to make a reasoned, considered choice to be a mum?

[Andrew Lilico]

David@19:32

Err...I hadn't mentioned Fascism. I think you may be talking to IRJMilne.

I don't think the political parties are under any particular obligation to have free votes on any old issue that someone regards as a matter of conscience. But if you consider something a core matter of your policy, to which a whip is to apply, and someone else considers that to agree is to violate her conscience, then the natural conclusion is that she isn't in the right government or even party. You're a daft political leader if you create such situations any more than you need to.

Thus, there is no obligation for political parties to respect everyone's conscience. If having or opposing gay marriage or abortion or foxhunting or the closure of rural post offices or membership of the European Union or invading Iran or allowing gambling on Good Friday is a core matter of policy, then you may have to wear some dissenters. It wouldn't be "monstrous" for Labour to have a whip on the HFE bill (as some Catholic priests have rather foolishly said today), but it could well be embarrasing. I trust and presume that good Catholics will vote with their conscience, whip or no whip, and there will be resignations from the government and yet more chaos for Gordon Brown. Here's hoping!

[Gordon's Missing Bottle]

IRJMilne: The point is that atheism isn't about "worship". All those things you cite are just religion substitutes (many of them literally -- in North Korea, kids are taught the Kims came down from heaven; while Hitler tried to create his own state religion).

I suppose we could stand here and do a Top Trumps style run off pitting allegedly religious atrocities against allegedly atheistic atrocities but what would be the point?

Anyway, I can see why Louise and others are aggrieved but if we say issues of conscience must never be whipped, I wonder where the line is drawn. What if a future Tory Cabinet minister came out for sharia law, or for the recriminalisation of homosexuality? You could say there should be a free vote, but this would be to suggest that the parties are neutral about the outcome. I hope any party leaders would see that it's not tenable for supporters of either of these positions to be in the Cabinet and would whip accordingly.

It's Brown's call as to whether it's worth offending the sensibilities of his colleagues to get it through. Is embryo research an imperative or an aspiration he'll sacrifice to keep his people together? Personally, I think it's an imperative, and if I was being whipped to oppose the bill I would quit in a heartbeat because I think handicapping scientific research which could ease suffering and torment to millions is evil. Full respect to any Catholic minister who steps down for their beliefs, and I have full sympathy for Catholics who are aggrieved about it, but I think Brown's right on this one. (And I never thought I'd be saying that!)

[Philip]

And you're a typical right-wing religious fruitcake constantly trying to force your bigoted views on the intelligent majority. (NorthernMonkey 1548)

Isn’t that what the social-liberal fascists have been trying to do in recent decades: forcing us to accept as right what is wrong, and to reject what is good? And using new laws to coerce the population into line?

[Christina Speight]

Steve R @1755 - You have got it wrong there, God did not "have his son ritually murdered". Man did that and Christ set us the example of how to deal with betrayal, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You say "I am fine with religion, but when you can only back it up with "faith" and not fact, I have no interest talking about it" By all means let us discuss the topic but you are somewhat adrift in saying that I can only back "it" up with 'faith' and not 'fact'.

I was trying to make the distinction between political adherence and 'belief' and 'faith', The word 'belief' is misused in politics. It attempts to be a rational process whereas one's faith is ultimately intuitive.

On this particular subject of the embryo Bill my stance is that all MPs should have a free vote always. That would put an end to the successive elective dictatorships we have endured for about a century or more.

Anyone may try and persuade MPs of the rightness or otherwise of their actions and the churches have a special position in this as their members have a close relationship. Non members of course go their way without spiritual guidance and this often means that they lack any principle at all.

[James Hickling]

Northern Monkey, try telling the ever-growing numbers of British Muslims that "faith is in permanent decline". I have a feeling they might disagree.

[Philip]

Further to my previous comment (2231), thank you Louise for this post. It reminds me of the furore when the then new EU Commission President Mr Barroso tried to appoint an Italian RC who, I think I recall correctly, has traditionalist beliefs on homosexual practice, as Justice Commissioner. Which group in the EU Parliament protested most vehemently? The British Labour Group! Questions were then raised as to whether it was becoming difficult for Christians (I mean real Christians who stand for truth and allow their beliefs to influence their work) to hold public office.

[Dave J]

"Fascism is the anti democratic exercise of power through a hierarchical structure which operates in a severely authoritarian manner."

Er, yes and no. That describes many forms of government of which fascism would be a subset. Fascism as developed by Mussolini is/was 1) nationalist, 2) ultra-statist in the sense that it elevated and revered the State above and to detriment of both the individual and all institutions of civil society, 3) corporatist, i.e., allowing private property only at the sufferance of the State, regulating, subordinating and coopting it rather than seeking to overtly destroy it. Nationalism and corporatism are the primary distinguishing features that Mussolini, a former socialist, adopted to distinguish fascism from socialism. Yet fascism is still a revolutionary ideology: calling it "right-wing" or "conservative" is a misinformed misnomer as there is little fascism seeks to truly conserve.

[Tony Makara]

Fascism was an economic system based around a corporate state and a directorate system of government administration. It was far removed from National Socialist Germany, Soviet Russia and certainly bears no similarity to right-wing Conservatism although the left like to portray Fascism as the 'last gasp' of the capitalistic system. Fascism clearly set out to control economic forces, which of course is quite different from trying to direct the macroeconomy as any sensible government would do.

I well remember a conversation that I had with an old gentleman of the left around the time of the TUC's disasterous 'day of action' back in 1980. He spoke of how free market economics is far closer to anarchy than anarcho-syndicalism and that the free market is inherently self-consuming and self-destructive. He conceded that even the Fascists, who he had battled in Cable St, knew how to end unemployment but the free-marketeers couldn't because they operate from an anarchic mind-set. Perhaps Fascism in its day was a reaction to unchecked market forces, something that served to discipline the economy for the better, to an extent, but with the downside of an oppresive political superstructure as a result.