We are writing to ask for your views on 10 key questions that voters with an interest in science and rationalism have told us are important to them at this election.
Skeptical Voter is a non-partisan project aimed at helping UK voters make an informed choice by documenting where each candidate stands on science, secularism and evidence-based policy.
Over the past few months we have been gathering information about the issues which skeptically-minded voters see as key priorities. Based on this feedback we have settled on the following 10 questions:

1. Do you support the use of NHS money to provide unproven health products such as homeopathy?

The word that immediately stands out - and I take issue with - is "unproven".  unproven to whom?  Certainly not to me, but that's because I have a friend, Dr Alex Hankey, who has published ground-breaking articles which provide the necessary proof, sufficient to satisfy _my_ personal criteria, on exactly this issue: the reason why homeopathy and other types of "complementary" medicines are effective.  However, his articles use extremely advanced quantum mechanics equations, and thus can only really be understood - and verified as "proofs" - by someone who understands quantum mechanics and, ironically, is willing to accept and appreciate that quantum mechanics equations can perfectly well be applied to outstandingly complex biological organisms such as cells and humans.

Thus you come to the issue of "trust".  If you do not have the knowledge or the level of expertise required to "understand" a "proof", even if you could find it, it is necessary for any individual wishing to gain answers to take it on some level of "trust" that a particular "unproven" technology, whether it be science or a branch of medicine, does or does not work, based on the answers given to them by someone else.

Thus, the question becomes: whom do you go to, to get the answers?  Whom do you "trust" to provide you with the answers?  Do you go to the NHS?  Do you go to the Government?  Do you go to "The Internet"?  Any individual can find any number of answers, to satisfy their own beliefs, and if they are not satisfied with the answer, they will find someone who is either ignorant enough or knowledgeable enough to give them an answer that they DO want to hear.

It's also worthwhile pointing out that in Chinese and Ayurvedic medicinal practices, the patient is expected - not just from a cultural perspective but an actual REAL whole-hearted down-to-the-bones perspective - to BELIEVE that the treatment will be effective.  This sounds absolutely ridiculous, but why is it any different from a Western Medical treatment?  When you go to a Western Doctor, you BELIEVE - you trust implicity - that the Medicine is going to be effective, do you not?  Because Science Said So, yes?  Because It's A Drug Therefore It Must Work, right?

So it is not as ridiculous as it sounds, to "believe" in the effectiveness of the treatment: thus, the patient is involved in their own cure, and is RESPONSIBLE for their own cure and their own health and well-being.  Why, therefore, especially in light of the fact that studies have shown that the "Placebo Effect" is actually an incredibly effective treatment, is it so hard to accept that Homeopathic Medicine might be effective, too?

I hope that my answer gives you some matters to consider and to research.  A more balanced question I would be able to give a much better and much more satisfactory answer.

2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?

I am so glad that this question is not "should schools be allowed to teach creationism INSTEAD of evolution".  My answer is quite straightforward, but requires a degree of flexibility, scientific knowledge AND spiritual awareness to accept.  Ask yourself this: surely God uses the "Tool Of Evolution" to do His Work?  In that simple question is a bombshell that will annoy and challenge both "Scientifically-illiterate Creationists" and "UnGodly Evolutionists" alike, as it implies that they BOTH have to come to understand the nature of the universe, but from radically different angles.

3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?

No, absolutely not - for a number of fundamental reasons.  One of those reasons is covered by the Pirate Party Manifesto: the right to Freedom of Speech, alongside reform of Libel Laws.

The second reason requires some explanation, and also requires some degree of spiritual awareness to understand where I am coming from.  The best background reading that I can recommend, in order to appreciate - not necessarily to accept but just appreciate - this answer, you should read "Journey of Souls" by Michael Newton. Newton documented repeatedly consistent experiences from people's times "between lives", and the interviewees consistently relate that our time "on earth" is to "learn particular pre-arranged lessons" or to undergo "certain experiences".

In this context, the whole issue of "religious persecution and/or ridicule" can be clearly seen to be something that people CHOOSE to perpetrate, and CHOOSE to be subjected to.  This, however, does NOT "excuse" or otherwise "make it all right".  Reading these words, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to use them as a justification to go out and cause pain or ridicule to anyone or anything, on the basis that "It's All Arranged Therefore I Can Do What I Like", because that could, in fact, go against what you agreed to be here for!

One thing also to note: the observers of religious persecution are "involved".  Perhaps it is "your task" so-to-speak, to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves;  perhaps it is not.  All that can be said is that it is an *individual's* decision to persecute, an *individual's* decision to deal with that persecution, and it is an *individual's* decision to intervene on behalf of someone being persecuted.  We are all ultimately responsible and accountable for our own actions and decisions; we all play our "roles".

Thus, it at first appears that is much more difficult to answer, from a spiritual perspective, on this issue: In fact it is not.  If I were to advocate and successfully get laws passed that resulted in religious beliefs being protected from ridicule, then all that would happen would be that those souls who wished to undergo the experience of being persecuted or of being the persecutor would simply choose to be born in a location in the world and at a time where that experience could take place.

However, I choose to err on the side of caution - to not involve myself nor to advocate involvement in racial persecution, nor would I advocate legislation which prevented such.  For once you begin down that road of "legislating against ridicule", then where do you draw the line?  By doing so, you a) endeavour to prevent people with religious beliefs from learning an important spiritual lesson, namely that what is happening "outside" - on the other side of your eyes and your thoughts - is separate from what goes on "inside" - within your own thoughts; b) you endeavour to prevent people from learning to respect people with different beliefs from their own; and there are tons of other worrisome consequences.

So, to sum up: whilst I do not in any way encourage or endorse any individual to carry out religous persecution of any kind, in any way shape or form; whilst I personally will NOT tolerate any such persecution on which i PERSONALLY happen, by chance or by design to encounter, I would not, at the same time in all good conscience, legislate or otherwise pass laws which would make it "illegal" for someone to undergo such a spiritually challenging and enlightening experience, for either party (persecutor or persecuted).  Not least because, on that simple practical level, to do so would interfere with the Right to Freedom of Speech.


4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly?

Of course they should!  Anybody should have the right to express views, regardless of whom they are, what they do, and regardless of any other obligations that they have.

TODO

5. Should religious courts such as Sharia and Beth Din be recognised as alternative systems within UK law?

I have _no_ idea what Sharia or Beth Din are, but the basic answer (TODO) will be that if you're in the UK, you better abide by UK law.

The more complex answer again involves the background and perspective above to understand and/or appreciate

6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?

Given that I understand that there are perfectly good long-established medicinal practices in the world which work perfectly well, and that long before "western" medical science existed, none of those medicinal practices ever went near causing pain or death to other creatures, or debased them in ways which demean our humanity more than they demean the creatures being "tested", I think it's safe to say that I take an extremely dim view of animal testing.

TODO: mention spiritual angle too.

7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?

If policy-makers cannot cope with scientific evidence being presented to them. then I think it would be much more sensible to get wiser, or more intelligent, or better-informed policy-makers.  That may be the same actual person, just after being trained, educated or enlightened.  But if anyone seriously thinks that it's a good idea for policy-makers to make critical decisions without being able to understand the issues and the implications, they must be off their heads.

I have to ask, though: who ever thought that making decisions or setting policy based solely on existing science would make life easier?

8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?

Absolutely no I do not.  There are important spiritual aspects which need to be taken into consideration as well.

9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?

This is quite a challenge to answer, but I will share my thoughts with you as they occur.

My personal view is that the law should never have been changed to allow random people to be "appointed" to the House of Lords in the first place.  There are good reasons for keeping the two Houses separate, and the way in which random people can be "appointed" by whatever 

Why would religious leaders enter the House of Lords in the first place?  Surely a religious leader would

10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence? <- this would be covered under the PPUK policy of adopting Libel Reform Campaign proposals, i think.

We know that these are controversial issues, with complex arguments on both sides. For this reason we want to give every candidate in this election the opportunity to tell voters, in their own words, where they stand on these important public policy questions.
Subject to the constraints of the law, our intention is to publish in full every candidate response that we receive. We would also be very interested in any further comments you wish to share with us about your views on this area of policy.