A.C. Grayling: ‘Prejudicial concerns’

[haggholm]

Religious observance must be consistent and accept the inevitable consequences of clashing with society's inclusivity.

Mr Andrew McClintock, Christian and ex-magistrate, is appealing against an employment tribunal decision which went against him earlier this year when he sought redress for having, as he claimed, been forced to resign because he was not granted exemption from sitting in hearings in which children might be given into the care of gay couples, something that offends his religious scruples.

He wished to be allowed to keep his job and his prejudices simultaneously, and to be allowed not to comply with the law of the land, because the sexual morality of shepherds 3,000 years ago, keen on the increase of their flocks, made it taboo for sex ever to be about anything other than reproduction. This principle resulted in the murder of Onan by God, and the Catholic church's long-time view that rape is less bad than masturbation because it can result in pregnancy. It also resulted in the millennia-long oppression and persecution of gays, who were put to death by the devotees of gentle Jesus meek and mild, an oppression and persecution that Mr McClintock wishes to keep alive.

Well: Mr McClintock did exactly the right thing by resigning. If his prejudices interfere with his responsibility to serve the law as one of its officers, he is evidently much better employed elsewhere. Think of a votary of any other religion allowing his personal beliefs to prevent him from carrying out his public duties in the UK: an orthodox Jewish fireman who would not carry a woman down a ladder from a burning house because he is allowed to touch no other woman than his wife and daughters; a devout Muslim in a council education department refusing to let girls into a certain school because there are boys there, or working for an adoption agency and refusing to countenance applications from gay couples; a doctor of either faith refusing to help a woman at the scene of an accident for the same kind of scruples - odd how all the examples that spring most readily to mind involve prejudices about women and gays.

The point is an entirely general one. When individuals cannot allow their religious loyalties to be trumped by their public responsibilities, they should resign; the alternative is for the public domain to be invaded and disrupted by a Babel of claimed individual religious sensitivities, or even worse, by various religious organisations whose prejudices, taboos, anxieties and antipathies distort the overall public endeavour for a decent and equitable social order which is as inclusive as possible. The McClintock case is another powerful argument for saying: if you are serious about your religion, be consistent and honest and accept the consequences, as Mr McClintock has rightly done by resigning. What he has done wrong (apart from allowing his life to be controlled by ancient superstition and prejudice) is to complain about the rest of us thinking he has done the right thing.

And that is why it is dangerous when pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for conctraception. Bravo, Dr. Grayling!

Found here, originally from here.

Comments

Good Videos

[(Anonymous)]

There is a guy on YouTube that I think you'd like...

Homosexuality is right cause god says its wrong!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2VKHdN2aNXc

Abortion...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WNnzpmU8hEg

Hi there! I'm God!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaZ4u-kY9yE

[petter-haggholm.livejournal.com]

I rather did enjoy that, and more than I thought I would. Thank you, whoever you are! (?)

I found it somewhat amusing or gratifying that he brought up a point that I have made in the past but that, obvious though it seems, rarely seems to be brought up in the pro-life debate: That not only does an abortion cut short a potential human life, but so does the loss of every sex cell that does not proceed to grow into a fetus.

By this logic, every sperm cell lost either through masturbation or by abstaining from sex long enough for it to expire in the testes is the loss of a potential human life. (The best figure I can find is that a man produces about 1000 sperm cells per second. Since sperm count must be roughly constant assuming no ejaculations, we must then suppose that a man must have sex a thousand times a second or as often as he can—whichever is greater—or be guilty of wasting sperm cells.) The same goes for egg cells, though the time span is more generous, but every ovum lost to abortion or menstruation is then a sin; only pregnancy or natural, involuntary miscarriage is acceptable. As the YouTube guy says—woman, be pregnant from your first cycle of fertility right up to menopause; anything less is a waste of potential human life.

Corrections

[petter-haggholm.livejournal.com]

It's late and I'm tired and I was sloppy, and though I caught my mistake quickly I can't edit the above, alas!

First: I left out a few words; I meant to say: The best figure I can find is that a man produces about 1000 sperm cells per second. Since sperm count must be roughly constant assuming no ejaculations, and since sperm loss must equal sperm increase in order to maintain that constant level…

Second: Of course the thousand times a second is not only absurd (which is fine; the argument is intended to highlight absurdity) but also incorrect, since it explicitly assumes no ejaculation whereas in having sex a hypothetical thousand times a second there's a disgusting amount of that involved. Although it varies wildly and my data may not be top-notch, the average ejaculation may contain up to 500 million sperm cells. If this were constant it would take almost a week (5.8 days) to replenish the supply. But sex less than once every 5.8 days is not correct either, because subsequent ejaculations would simply contain less sperm, and because 500 million (from a quick Google search) seems an very high value. 150 million for an average ejaculation seems more average (minimum amount of sex to avoid sin: Once every 41.7 hours, and I still haven't taken reduced sperm count in subsequent ejaculations into account). 60 million is cited as within the normal range (once every 17 hours, and still…).

Now, beyond the fact that the man can ejaculate and simply ejaculate fewer sperm cells (but still have a chance to impregnate—no excuse!), I've ignored another fact, namely that these calculations (implicitly) assume that sperm cells are ejaculated in a strict order according to age—oldest first, no exceptions!—which will obviously not be the case. I have no idea how to formulate the math to actually calculate how often you have to have sex to remain without sin (in this regard), but from the above, and from the observation that these factors will increase the frequency (reduce the period), I conclude that you should have sex at least twice a day in order to avoid the sin of wasting potential life, as a man, and preferably with different partners (no point in wasting good sperm on a woman you've already impregnated). Women should obviously have sex as much as they can, with as many men as possible (to avoid falling victim to a sterile partner), until they know they are pregnant. They should take care of themselves as best they can, give birth—and immediately get pregnant again.

Welcome to the sinless life!