Assisted Dying

[Billysboots]

Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.

But I thought you were advocating freedom of choice? If those suffering want to seek spiritual guidance from their church or chosen faith, that is entirely up to them. But what it doesn’t mean is that the church should be allowed freedom to interfere in the lives, or indeed deaths, of those who do not actively follow any faith.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.

Fewer and fewer people look to spiritual support, support is found elsewhere. You do, your friendship group may well do, but the rest of the country less so. You may look for advice from the archbishop, I don't want him to be anywhere near my life or public policy.

 

[clubchamp98]

Fewer and fewer people look to spiritual support, support is found elsewhere. You do, your friendship group may well do, but the rest of the country less so. You may look for advice from the archbishop, I don't want him to be anywhere near my life or public policy.

Yes this .
The church leaders need to say no to the press when things like this come up.
Tend your own flock .

 

[clubchamp98]

I think the only way to sort this out is a referendum.
But we’re not great at accepting the results of them.
But it can’t just be left to politicians.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes this .
The church leaders need to say no to the press when things like this come up.
Tend your own flock .

Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock. Well I’ll tell you. Everyone. Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice. Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what will always be a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious. Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.

 

[Billysboots]

Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock. Well I’ll tell you. Everyone. Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice. Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what for me is a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious. But do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up.

They may well see me as part of their flock. But they do not speak for me. It’s a really simple point.

 

[toyboy54]

There's a few on here that would gladly assist you Jimbo ?

Brilliant, just brilliant!!

 

[SocketRocket]

But I thought you were advocating freedom of choice? If those suffering want to seek spiritual guidance from their church or chosen faith, that is entirely up to them. But what it doesn’t mean is that the church should be allowed freedom to interfere in the lives, or indeed deaths, of those who do not actively follow any faith.

But surely they should be entitled to a view on the matter. Huge numbers of people throughout the World are members of a religion or support their views so why should their religious leaders not give pastoral advice on subjects like this. I can understand some saying they disagree with the views but I'm struggling to see why it's none of their business.

 

[Billysboots]

But surely they should be entitled to a view on the matter. Huge numbers of people throughout the World are members of a religion or support their views so why should their religious leaders not give pastoral advice on subjects like this. I can understand some saying they disagree with the views but I'm struggling to see why it's none of their business.

I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.

 

[Hobbit]

I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.

Their views didn’t sway the abortion debate/act in the mid 60’s. They have even less influence now. If anything, their perceived interference will be inclined to harden opinion against their view.

 

[SocketRocket]

But that's the wa

I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives. Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

 

[SocketRocket]

Their views didn’t sway the abortion debate/act in the mid 60’s. They have even less influence now. If anything, their perceived interference will be inclined to harden opinion against their view.

That's not the case with all religions though, some have huge influence on people's lives.

 

[Blue in Munich]

But that's the wa

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives. Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

So if it's not compulsory to be a member, and the majority are not, why should their opinion be allowed to have so much influence in the final decision?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock. Well I’ll tell you. Everyone. Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice. Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what will always be a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious. Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.

No, they are the heads of particular "organisations ", I.e. Bodies of people that have similar or same views and aims.
They are not entitled to think they can guide or offer authoritative advice to the general populace. That is arrogance. They have had this position for far too long, all the time thinking it their right.
And it suited the powers that be in society, in order to keep control.
E.g. It cannot be considered, by anyone now thinking objectively, that the
System used by the landed gentry, where the second son ( first being the heir) went into the Church because he was a devout believing Christian.
It was an out and out social order of power thing.
Organised religion has no more right than anybody else to determine the result on questions of this importance. Their place is in their Churches, not Parliament.

 

[Tashyboy]

Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.

Whether some on here and many out there like it or not, many people seek the support and advice of their own religious leader, if they have one, when the very difficult sort of decision we are talking about has to be made. The view of the religious leaders is therefore still very important - IMO - as they give a different perspective that can be helpful to some - perhaps many.

And btw I get pretty sick of hearing and reading all religion, denominations and traditions being damned as one as a result of the warped views and actions of some - often a very long time ago - whilst the huge amount of positive, beneficial and caring work that is done by the active religious community in the present day is ignored as if it was irrelevant.

Anyway…just had to get that off my chest…?

The answer to that question is There mother. When they are dying in the trenches. When there guts are hanging out. There comrades in arms spend all night listening to them crying for there mother ?

 

[Tashyboy]

But that's the wa

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives. Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

And there in lies the problem, let me copy your post and change a word.

But that's the way politics work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives. Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

It seems that politics and religion work the same way, you sign up to a political party or religion and lose the right to free speech.you have to follow the political or religious line. And that for me is so so wrong. Especially when it comes to medical decisions.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If you only want those organisations that have the support of a majority of the country to be permitted to have a say on important matters, then we are not going to have much public information giving and discourse of the sort we are not allowed to discuss here. But hey…that’s different isn’t it…

And on that I’m out.

 

[SocketRocket]

So if it's not compulsory to be a member, and the majority are not, why should their opinion be allowed to have so much influence in the final decision?

We are at will to ignore their opinion. Some political parties have views on such matters, take the death penalty for example, the majority may be in favour of it but the Politic advise us that it's wrong. We live in a free society where we can accept or reject the views of others, if religious organisations have leaders then it's not surprising that they will give interpretations on matters of life and death.

 

[SocketRocket]

And there in lies the problem, let me copy your post and change a word.

But that's the way politics work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives. Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

It seems that politics and religion work the same way, you sign up to a political party or religion and lose the right to free speech.you have to follow the political or religious line. And that for me is so so wrong. Especially when it comes to medical decisions.

You don't have to follow the religious line, it's your own decision if you do.

 

[SocketRocket]

No, they are the heads of particular "organisations ", I.e. Bodies of people that have similar or same views and aims.
They are not entitled to think they can guide or offer authoritative advice to the general populace. That is arrogance. They have had this position for far too long, all the time thinking it their right.
And it suited the powers that be in society, in order to keep control.
E.g. It cannot be considered, by anyone now thinking objectively, that the
System used by the landed gentry, where the second son ( first being the heir) went into the Church because he was a devout believing Christian.
It was an out and out social order of power thing.
Organised religion has no more right than anybody else to determine the result on questions of this importance. Their place is in their Churches, not Parliament.

The most influential religions on people's lifestyles are not Christian any more and whether we like it or not their influence is not diminishing.