Episode 4 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome. I am Sean Williams with a show that is -- that deals with the

week was my big stories. As a former Archbishop of Canterbury says he is

in favour of assisted dying, we ask you to vote on what you think and we

talk to a woman who accompanied her brother on his last journey.

It was an honour to help him to end his life as he wanted.

Ballroom dancing is in a spin over same-sex couples and the icing on

the cake has cooked up a row, has the gay rights movement achieved

equality? The World Cup final between

Argentina and Germany today may cause split loyalties in the Vatican

but is sport now the new religion? And actress Liz Carr talks about her

life, and Silent Witness. It is a beautiful day today.

Very neat. -- very beat. All that coming up and we shall be

in heaven and hell, being played out in a damp York this morning. Good

morning, Olivia. Good morning, it is normally

beautiful and York Minster but the heavens have opened. -- in York

Minster. But the plays will be getting underway this morning, an

ancient medieval tradition that will see the battle between good and evil

played out across the city. Thank you, I have never seen an

angel with them on Bradley! Our guests are getting ready. --

with an umbrella. Joining us is journalist Andrew

Pierce who was once described as the six most powerful gay man in British

politics. Writer Bea Campbell is a feminist.

Rabbi Jonathan is here, a season ticket holder at Reading for all

club -- football club who remain out of the Premier League.

And the writer Rosie who has run marathons all over the world.

We would like to know what you think.

First, assisted dying, and that controversial intervention by former

Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey. He says the law should change to

allow terminally ill people with less than six months to live to be

helped to end their lives, a U-turn on his previous position. Justin

Welby, the present Archbishop, has described the bill is mistaken and

dangerous. The Church of England has called for a Royal Commission and

says any proposed legislation should be put on ice.

Lord Carey says he has dropped his opposition to be assisted dying Bill

in the face of the reality of needless suffering he says it was

the case of Tony Nicklinson who had locked in syndrome and died after

being refused the legal right to assistance to end his life which has

the deepest influence on his decision. The bill tabled by Lord

Falconer will be debated in the House of Lords next week and it

would make it legal for adults in England and Wales to be given

assistance to end their lives. It would apply to those with less than

six months to live. Two doctors would have to independently confirm

the patient was terminally ill and had reached their own informed

decision to die. The current Archbishop of Canterbury says the

argument in favour of the bill is deeply flawed. And it could make

vulnerable terminally ill people feel they ought to stop being a

burden on others. There has been another significant

intervention this morning. Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop,

intervention this morning. Desmond come out in favour of assisted

dying. He says, I have been fortunate

dying. He says, I have been for the dignity of the living, now I

wish to apply to apply my mind to the dignity of the dying. I revere

the sanctity of life but not at any cost. The reaction now of two people

who know Lord Carey. Jonathan is here. And joining us from Tunbridge

Wells is a former Bishop of Rochester. Good morning. Jonathan,

it you worked with Lord Carey when he was redrafting his position, why

did he change his mind? -- you worked. It was not one moment but an

accumulation of thinking the old position was no longer appropriate.

There are people who are suffering and it is not religious to let them

carry on in pain. Intervention is two fault, it is no longer a debate

between the religious and secular camp -- twofold. It is a debate with

them the religious community. -- within. And there are a lot of

religious people across all faiths who believe you can have a deep

faith but believe people dying in agony you wish to terminate their

lives earlier rather than carry on suffering should have the right to

do so if they so wish. You say there is a debate within

religion. Bishop Michael, you also know Lord Carey well, is he right?

George is very warm-hearted and I can see why he has had this sympathy

for Tony Nicklinson in his predicament. But what I cannot

understand is how this in anyway advances his argument in favour of

Lord Falconer's Bill because that is about terminally ill able whereas

Tony Nicklinson was not -- people. This will in fact widen the

provision, the very thing Lord Carey fears, to include all sorts of

people like the disabled, the depressed and even those tired of

life. The other thing about this will George wants to support is how

we can no exactly when somebody is going to die. -- how can we know.

There is remission, reversal, reversal -- waiting around for other

tips. People who have been given six months to live sometimes live for

years after. I cannot see how you could predict somebody has only six

months to live, I would say miracles as well, by the way. We cannot just

rely on George's experience, however much we may be moved by it. We must

look at the value of the human person, Jews and Christians would

say, made in the image off. Dash-macro one. -- the image of

God. It is almost possible to relieve all pain the -- these days,

and the prohibition of killing does not mean keeping people alive, they

can be refused treatment, all those things.

Thank you very much. We will be debating this later in the

programme. We will hear from both of you. It is a question for the online

vote. Should assisted dying be made legal?

Results will be announced before the end of the programme.

It is not often the Prime Minister is drawn into an argument about

baking. This week, he was, after a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland

refused to make a cake in support of gay marriage. The customer complains

to the equality commission which is investigating if he was

discriminated against waste on his sexual orientation. It comes after

the British dance Council revealed proposals to have mixed sex only

competitions. So has the battle for gay rights been one and does free

speech extends to turning away those who are gay?

John Church and Alex have danced together four years competitively,

and news they may not be able to compete against mixed sex couples

concerns them. Many of these people would not like

change of a footstep in a particular dance let alone changing the gender

of the person you are dancing with. The British dance Council will

debate finding -- defining a partnership is one man and one lady

unless otherwise stated, allowing organisers to host mixed sex only

competitions if they want. Same-sex dance couples can currently enter

both times categories. We have been pleasantly surprised at

competitions, fellow competitors are convivial and welcoming. There has

been some negativity but we fix skin is and we can take that.

In June, thousands lined the streets of London for gay pride, calling for

an end to discrimination. -- thick skin. The charge has been levelled

at a Belfast bakery this week which refused to make a cake supporting

gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. I would like this

to be that any Christians from any business can be allowed to follow

their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running

of their business and they are allowed to make decisions based on

that. Last year, the soup green court

dismissed an appeal by bed and breakfast owners that they acted

within the law after they refused a ring to a gay couple -- the soup

Dreamcoat. The couple said they would not let a couple stay who were

not married based on their beliefs. -- the soup green court. So are the

relates of some being sidelined? For Alex and John, any changes will not

stop them pursuing their hobby. -- the rights. We will continue

whatever happens but if the rule does happen, dancing will change in

its form and content and that would be a great shame.

The British dance Council says it stands for equality in all areas of

society. It says, that includes sexuality, it is levelling the

playing field across all competitions. Andrew Pierce, where

do you stand? Is it right for the bakery to turn away gay customers?

They are not turning them away because they are gay but because the

slogan they wanted they suspected would be used in a political

campaign and they did not support gay marriage. Northern Ireland has

not legalised gay marriage and it is not equal marriage anyway, it is the

only equality legislation I know which says that you cannot get

married in a Church. So people are trying to do their job and the force

of the law is being brought in about a cake, I cannot believe this is

happening. When I marched for gay a cake, I cannot believe this is

attack people trying to get on with their lives -- section. They are not

saying they people could not cross that threshold, that would be

unacceptable. They are just saying they will not be used in a political

campaign and what is wrong with that? They are not saying no go --

bogey customers, they just object to the runcible of gay marriage -- no

gay customers. The great thing about bigotry that

is resisting in this case one of the great cultural revolutions of our

time, our lives are being transformed by this movement, it has

to find an alibi or an excuse. So what happens is that it is not the

gay customer at the gate cake. -- the gay cake. It is a melting

something Christians do not believe in. So if you are in the business of

selling goods and services, you are in the business of confronting the

world as it is and I am sorry but we are talking about a location that is

the most patriarchal, sectarian and sexist and this controversy, it may

seem silly, but it would help them sort themselves out.

changed, some of its attitudes haven't caught up? A lot of people

feel a disconnect between intellect and emotion. Intellectually, most

people think it is right that gay people should be treated equally, I

certainly endorse it through a religious perspective. Gay people

are born gay and therefore, from a religious perspective, God created

people gay. That is not all Christians believe? I know, but

there we go. You just dismissed their views? A lot of religious

people have come round, just like we used to have slavery in the Bible,

we didn't have women's rights, we have moved on. Morality is never

static. Although we agree, intellectually, emotionally, not

everybody has quite caught up with it. There is a disconnect. I'm sure

we are going to get there, although I have no doubt that once we are in

the public domain, baking cakes for sale, all competitive dancing, there

has to be a quality. Complete equality? I salute the gay movement

and I think women can learn a lot from it. Complete equality

everywhere, and I agree completely, if you are a commercial enterprise,

selling cakes, you have to sell cakes. Your morality does not come

into it, unless you are asking for a cake with something on it that is

illegal, like, please murder my mother. Which is obviously madness.

illegal, like, please murder my Women, however, allow all sorts of

things. There are clubs where I cannot be a member because I am

female. You think that gay rights have regressed further? I think

women's liberation, women's equality, should take a lesson from

the gay movement and start knocking out things like mad restrictions on

women in golf clubs or bars, which is deeply offensive and wrong. What

about this issue with the dancing? Who would have thought that

homophobia would be level that ballroom dancing? Is anybody really

suggesting the world of ballroom dancing is homophobic? It is the

world of sequins, and that is just the boys! There is Bruno on the

Strictly judging panel. I'm a fan of Christopher Biggins, big,

larger-than-life, very gay. If he goes on Strictly Come Dancing, which

he might, is he going to have to dance with a man? I pity the man!

You'll have to throw him around and he'll have a bad back. The fact is,

physically it gives huge advantage to two men. Is not just boys and how

they hold themselves? The man that through Anne Widdecombe around the

stage, it was about a bit of strength, trust me. The thing that

is hilarious, it's another of these cases were a bit of Daft, reckless,

and thought out bigotry reveal something. They are saying one man,

and one lady... OK, what happens if you have two ladies dancing

together? Is the strength argument remotely relative? I think lovingly

of my late friend may and her great friend Alice, who used to go dancing

together. They were widows, as it happened. But who wants to know?

Would they be banned? I think you are being a bit precious. It's not

really about sexuality, it's about sex -- strength and stamina. There

are same-sex and mixed sex competitions. If you can have

same-sex only competitions, you should be allowed to have mixed sex

only as well. As gays, we think we have to do have all the laws in our

direction. If we are only having same-sex competitions, why can't you

have just male and female? It treats the law the same. You have same-sex

competitions because gays have been excluded from... Not from ballroom

dancing! I want to go to Belfast and bring in David Smith from the

evangelical Alliance. Do you think that Christians have the right to be

offensive? Sorry, I didn't hear the question. Do you think Christians

have the right to be offensive. OK, sorry. If we look at this case, the

principle of freedom of conscience, I think that this case could have

been triggered by any number of religious or political

circumstances. In this instance, about gay marriage, I think there is

a perception among Christians that the public square is being policed

in terms of guarding the new social orthodoxy. Even in Northern Ireland,

where marriage is still legally defined as between a man and a

woman. In this circumstance, there is no

woman. In this circumstance, there offence being intended by

Christians, by refusing to put a message on their cake. David, thank

you very much. I think the real division is between social and

competitive. Social dancing in a hotel, it should be open to

everybody, all sorts of permutations. If it is competitive,

I think it is fair enough for the sport to set its own rules. You are

talking about prizes, titles and awards. That is why we have separate

men and women for tennis, hockey and football. I think that is a crucial

distension. A lesbian couple presumably do not command, as if it

were relevant, the strength or whatever that two men do. It could

go on, thank you, we have to leave that one. We have other issues to

debate. Just to remind you, our vote is still open and our question this

morning is about assisted dying. We asking if assisted dying should be

made legal. You can vote only once. You can also vote online on the

website. Results will be announced at the end

of the show. We have about 20 minutes or 30 minutes until it

closes. Still to come: Mystery with history. We celebrate a religious

tradition in the streets of York. Wind and water is Wayne...

Before that, we are going to chat to Liz Carr, an active campaigner for

disability rights and comedian. She also stars in one Briton's most

popular programmes, Silent Witness. . Lovely to you. She plays Clarissa,

who is very smart and with a sharp sense of humour.

I'm trying to find the lab. I'm sorry, am I not enunciated in? Who

are you? Clarissa Mallory. That means nothing. Perhaps it means

something to the person in charge? I am in charge. Do you have an

appointment? Jack always talks about you. He's a shocking judge of

character. How do you know jack option? I work with him. What do you

do? I make him look clever. Sorry, mate. Did I forget to mention

Clarissa? I don't always succeed... You have a nice line of sarcasm! In

real life, as well! Do you bring some of you to the character? When

they said they wanted someone that was a bit of a technical nerd,

somebody that was sarcastic, I thought it wasn't going to be a

great stretch. I thought it was great casting, in a way. What did

you think when you were approached and did you have any say in the

character? It was quite amazing, I turned 40 when I was auditioning for

it. Reaching my age, as a disabled person, there are not that many

disabled people in drama. But there are more and more. Why is that? I

think the tide is changing. Sometimes, we don't think of

disabled people in roles. It happened with Clarissa, actually. It

was written for a non-disabled actress and they went, you know

what, why can't a disabled actress play that? And then there was a bit

of panic, where would we find someone? And there are actually a

lot of disabled performers out there. It was a bit like finding

Cinderella, but instead of the shoe it was a wheelchair and I happened

to fit it. It was a great audition process. It was a surprise to me. I

think possibly why I got it is because when I went for the audition

I thought, I'll never get it, so I was quite confident and relaxed. I

think that was the way to play it. The character is like that. What is

nice is that you don't play a disabled character, you play a

person, as any other person is, and that, seems to me, marks a bit of a

sea change in the way... Deals with disability? The writer said, if we

don't have a story about disability, don't worry. Just your presence in

the show actually speaks volumes. It's very clear, I am a disabled

person. Every time I wheeled into a scene, you have changed the dynamics

lightly. You don't need to bang on about, how is all wheelchair today?

Right, that is really interesting. We go straight for the drama. The

comedy, hopefully. As a comedian, you are really not afraid, and I've

seen some of the stuff you do, you are not afraid to say anything about

anything, are you? Puncturing people's... You know, sometimes

people feel nervous about making jokes about disability, but you do

it quite freely. Why is that? People are really scared about difference

and impairment. They don't know how to approach it. You can imagine, I

wheel onto stage and they think, usually, they are raising money for

charity, Children in Need or something. , what if she's not

funny? Do we laugh? Do we patronise her? You have to disarm people and

comedy is a great way of doing that. I do it in my everyday encounters as

a way of survival, in a way. I thought, why not make a career out

of that and use what I have learned, that comedy can break down lots of

barriers and you can say things you couldn't normally say, but with a

twinkle in your eye and a bit of mischief. It's OK for you to say

that, but is it OK for others? I think it depends on the intention.

If you are poking fun at the world around you, the experience of how

people treat you, that's fine. Sometimes, the disabled comedy by

other people is a bit mean. Instinctively, I know the

difference, but it is a tough answer. I don't believe in

censorship, I do believe people should have the right to make jokes

about most things that they want to. But do it cleverly and don't just go

for the cheap, easy jokes. I know that you are a campaigner for

disability rights and something else you campaign for and are going to be

discussing to the programme is about assisted dying. We would like you to

take part in that debate, if you are willing to, because it would be

interesting to hear your views. We are returning to the subject of your

vote. We are asking if assisted dying should be made legal. There is

a bill in the House of Lords this week which says its chilly

a bill in the House of Lords this should, for those that are

terminally ill with less than six months to live. We have heard what

some religious leaders think earlier in the programme. Here is someone

who has experienced the trauma of dealing with life and death

first-hand. Lesley close went with her brother, John, to Switzerland on

his last journey. In 2001, Lesley Close's brother,

John, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, a progressive and

terminal illness. John was a fit, creative, funnyman. Within two years

he was unable to speak, to stand, to swallow, to turn over in bed. In

January 2003, he saw a BBC website story about somebody who went to

Dignitas. He said, when I go, that is what I want to do. I said, I'll

go with you whatever you want to do. And it was like a weight off his

shoulders. He ended up going to Switzerland to die. He spent the

last two weeks saying goodbye to friends and family. It was an honour

to be able to help him to end his life as he wanted. If he died in a

normal way, with motor neurone disease, he probably would have been

on his own comic in bed, at night. I would forever worry about him being

afraid, what he went through, physically, as his life ended. The

way that he died has given me nothing but comforting memories of

that day. The debate of Lord Falconer's Bill next week fills her

with hope. I am confident that it will change. We can't go on using

Switzerland to solve this problem. We can't go on ignoring it. It's

based on legislation from 15 years ago. Since then, there has been no

call to expand the remix of people that can apply for assisted death.

There has been no sign of a slippery slope that people talk about so

much. She says her brother would be delighted to see the law being

debated in the House of Lords is. He had asked her to campaign to change

the law so that other people didn't have to travel to Switzerland like

him. He was the seventh British prison to go. There will be almost

250 now. I feel I have failed him 240 times. -- British person. It

gladdens my heart, as it would John's.

Dying Bill in Britain or would that be a slippery slope? When you hear

that story, do you think that assisted dying is compassionate?

I do, although I also think this is difficult because it is difficult

and I can see those who do not agree disagree. What is so arresting about

this and this particular moment is that this conversation is being

driven by people whose lives are agony. And whose loved ones are

sharing that agony. It is not piloted by people who want to get

rid of the elderly or the disabled, this is not about disability or

dependents but about how we as Asus is Heidi -- as a society retorts

some -- restore some autonomy to people living in a dreadful death.

And if we do not, we remain as we are, we have to lie to ourselves. So

it is about autonomy and choice and offering people in severe pain and

suffering the chance to end their lives sooner. It is the word choice

that concerns me. It is very difficult, I am opposed to assisted

suicide which makes me a bad person. Do you disagree with choice? Of

course not. But so many people in society do not have choice and we

are fooling ourselves if we think this is the ultimate last rate. --

the last right. Suicide is not legal in this country and people are

struggling and committing suicide because they are not getting state

support, benefits, and the NHS is in such a state of change that I am

concerned we have put this decision into the hands of the medical

profession. Why would that be a bad thing? Like the safeguards that we

have, that you have two be approved of -- by two DRS, that is it. We

know to get the medical profession to open up about negligence is a

closed subject. -- two doctors. So what concerns me is that all sorts

can happen behind closed doors and we can never called to account what

is going on. So as a disabled person, I have had a lot of medical

involvement... What the bill does is it licenses doctors to assist

certain people in certain circumstances to end their lives and

I do not know we should be doing that, and now the do most doctors.

77% of GPs in a recent study. It is very limited circumstances. This is

not a matter of politics but economic -- but ethics. I do not

believe in suffering, and we are not talking about people who are

depressed but who are terminally ill. They have no choice, they are

dying, that is it. They do have choice about how they die, in pain

or dignity. There will be a lot of people who want to carry on until

the last moment and we should give them every protection, but for those

who do not and who are fed up with the -- the agony, we should give

them that option. This is not about obligations, but options.

But Liz is saying that as soon as you medicalise it, you put it into

the hands of other people and there is a risk.

I am troubled about the debate and doctors playing God and it puts

pressure on doctors. Jonathan talked about going to Holland. It is

happening a lot, ?6,000 a year. And some of the architects of assisted

suicide saying they wish they had not got so involved, because it is a

slippery slope. We are talking about six months left, that could change

again, what about those people in old people's homes being good used?

-- abused. Old people could be thinking that the Grim Reaper is

coming and it is in the form of the doctor.

But the first person this starts with is the person who is dying. At

the minute, whatever they wish, they cannot, if they are relatively

powerless, they cannot missed anybody to support them in deciding

when how they die, giving Babel die dreadfully. -- they will die.

Lamp, you were paralysed -- Paul Lambert, you were paralysed in a car

accident and you campaign for Assisted Dying Bill. Why is it so

important to you? It is important because I do not

want to end up in the situation where I cannot get out of bed any

more. And I have to suffer because of other people who have determined

that is what they want me to do. I want to have the choice so I do not

have to suffer and when I am ready and the time is right, I want to

call upon the professional bodies to help me. How I need help things. --

helping. I do not want to have this feeling in the background but I have

always had where if I end up in bed and I cannot move or do anything,

society is going to make me suffer. More than is necessary.

The argument has been made that people in this position of

vulnerable -- they are vulnerable and they might be put under pressure

to take a decision which perhaps is not in their best interests.

Can you understand that? Yes, of course. But with the right people in

place to make sure this does not happen, I think it could be

safeguarded. Can I just say, hello, Paul, I am

aware of you. It is very compelling and I am not against individuals and

their choices and suicide, but Paul is not terminally ill and what he is

asking for as I understand it is that he could not do the act himself

so he is at -- so he is asking doctors to take more involvement.

What he wants is different to the bill. He is a disabled person and he

once doctors to voluntarily euthanise him. Let's use the

language. So in your case, it is about

voluntary euthanasia, you will like that more to be passed and to go

further? -- you would like that law to be passed. Yes, I have seen

people suffer for months and years and I have seen the pain they have

gone through. Palliative care does not work. And to watch these people

going through pain over long periods, I just think it is barbaric

and cruel. I want is to get the views of the

bishop who joins us from Tunbridge Wells, the former Bishop of

Rochester. I hope you could hear what Paul was saying.

I could not. His argument is that when you are in enormous pain, the

most compassionate thing and enlightened thing is to allow that

person to be able to take their own life, why not?

I have to mend is sympathy for Paul and others like him in their

condition, but what his case illustrates is precisely the danger

of the slippery slope -- tremendous sympathy. If this Bill in Parliament

is passed, it is for the terminally ill. But as has been pointed out

already, Paul is not terminally ill so where do you stop? How many

disabled people would be allowed to die, how many of those who are

depressed, how many just tired of life? The example of Oregon was

given and that law was for the terminally ill.

But only 50 people a year use that option when it is open to more. So

just knowing you have that option does not mean you you will go down

that line. That is not the point I am making, the reasons they are

giving for dying is not pain and agony. They are tired of life, loss

of autonomy, they cannot do what they want to do. If you really want

a slippery slope scenario, the Netherlands is clearly a case where

the very architect of the law is saying, do not go down this way, it

is not desirable. Our duty is to relieve suffering. I completely

agree with Paul about that. But that can be done now. We are fortunate to

live in times where people need not suffer pain that is unbearable, it

can be relieved, there is always sedation. But it is not the job of

the medical profession to assist people in dying.

Paul, it is not the job of the medical profession to assist in

dying? I myself have got family and friends

that would without question help me when the time is right if there was

the law. So they do not stand the chance of being prosecuted or have

the stigma that they have done something which society does not

agree with. I want to put that point about the

slippery slope which has been made to Jonathan. A friend of Lord Carey

and in 2006, Lord Carey argued that if the law was changed, it would

soon be treated as casually as abortion. When you start doing

something, or views towards that act change over time and that is the

argument -- the views. It will only change if society wants

it to change but there is no is -- no reason why. To quote Holland is

wrong because they started on a different premise. The reason a lot

of religious people are supporting the bill is because it is very

limited. It will not cater for Paul, that is true. But we strongly

believe that by having this red line in the sand only for the terminally

ill, there are so many conditions, they have to be seen by two doctors,

they have to be given palliative care, there has to be a reflective

period and they can stop the process. It is not doctors, the

doctors can give the prescription but the person concerned initiates

it and proceeds with it. So there are enough safeguards, a

cooling off period, two doctors. It sounds OK on paper but I am

worried and when politicians have the power to change a law, they will

do so again and again and I think the slippery slope argument is why I

am reluctant. There are many vulnerable people who will think, it

could be me. On the contrary. We know from Oregon

that when the law came in 14 years ago, hundreds of people applied for

it but very few people proceeded. People want the emotional safety

net. About 50 a year. You are right to be

worried, About 50 a year. You are right to be

that is why we are having this conversation. It is difficult but

there is one category of person on the planet in society who has

absolutely no right to make fundamental decisions about how they

live and how long, and that is people whose lives have become

unbearable. That is the one person we are talking about. The

conversation is, do they get the right to make decisions about their

living? Given they are dependent on other people. The decision stays

with them. We have to be really careful about

the judgements about suffering. Even compassion, that is a lovely term

but it can be dressed up as prejudice. My own doctor thinks I am

incredible just for getting up in the morning. That is pretty

patronising. The word compassion, you cannot legalise compassion. We

need to be very careful about that. At the way the law stands, it often

does allow assisted suicide but it does have a deterrent. When the law

is passed, the law comes out of it and it goes into the power of the

doctors. In Oregon, there is no abuse, do you know why? The doctors

are the people monitoring. The doctor gives you the prescription

and they tell the local authority what they have done, of course.

We give people options about their own death. I think they have them.

People do have choice, there is amazing palliative care. Doctors are

not supporting this. We have seen cases of people who do want to end

their lives but they are a few people and the law is about

safeguarding the majority. Rather than the strong, articulate voices.

all of you. That is our vote. The vote is closing now, please don't

text because your vote will not be counted and you may still be

charged. Once every four years, God and Satan

battle it out on the streets of York. The mystery plays, staged on

wagons which are around the city depicting scenes of heaven and hell.

Olivia Richwald is there now, as some of the actors prepare for

today's performances. Good morning. What you have here is

heavenly timing. It was torrential until about five minutes ago. The

play that you see behind me is the story of John the Baptist. It is one

of 12 Bible plays showing in York today. What is so great is that they

are on movable wagons. Each one takes about ten or 20 minutes to

perform and they will move around, in four different locations. Let's

speak to the artistic director. In some ways, they

speak to the artistic director. In In many ways, they have. The biggest

changes that the groups In many ways, they have. The biggest

performing now are really drawing on contemporary resonance and things

that are happening around the world and today. Why is it important to

keep performing every four years? Because they still have something

profound to say. They are full of the universal themes that speak to

humanity. Let's speak to the producer. Tell me a little bit about

the meaning of these 12 players. It works on ceremony different levels

with the plays in York. Being part of the city's cultural heritage,

there is that thing about being part of the community, part of the city.

In one layer, people get involved with that. Then there are the

biblical stories that are coming through, the resonance they have in

contemporary society. It works at all sorts of different entry points.

Let's talk about the relevance today, these ancient, medieval

stories. Are they relevant to a modern audience? The stories have

stood the test of time. That's not down to the mystery plays, they are

universal tales, great stories. For people with faith, there is

something very important that resonates with them about seeing

them perform live. For the audiences today, they are seeing something in

York that has been done since medieval times. Our forefathers have

walked the streets, doing is plays in these locations, in this way,

walked the streets, doing is plays decades and centuries. For others,

as a community, it's decades and centuries. For others,

thing to keep going in that respect. Thank you very much. I'll show you

over here, this is the raising of Lazarus. If the weather does not

suit you today, don't worry, are on again in York next Sunday.

Well done to the actors are on again in York next Sunday.

wail through the piece, conventionally. There were

wail through the piece, in the past for their feasting and

wantonness. I am sure there will be some of that today! There will be

celebrations elsewhere as well, but by which a footballing nation? The

finals are broadcast to more than 200 countries. In the smallest

state, Vatican City, 200 countries. In the smallest

two interested cities, as Pope Francis's Argentina faces Germany,

the home of his predecessor. The Vatican spokesman say they want the

better team to win and they are not taking sides. For some, the sport

reflects religion and is almost a religion in itself, as we saw with

the reactions to defeat in the host nation of Brazil.

A country nation of Brazil.

Church, but Brazil also has a love affair with football. It is the

sport but claimed affair with football. It is the

minds of the crowds this week. They were still praying, but for

deliverance from the spectacle of Brazil's worst World Cup defeat,

7-1. On the pitch, the players dropped to their knees, whether for

forgiveness or mercy, it is not clear. Here, we have been

worshipping Wimbledon. Novak Djokovic, a devout Christian, could

be seen thanking God for his victory. In Yorkshire, people went

forth unto the hills and great multitudes in awe of the Tour De

France. Even churches joined the salute. As fans raise their hands

heavenwards in support of their heroes, are sporting events where we

pay homage and has bought the company religion?

3-0 to Holland last night in the third-place play-off, and that

caused some tears as well. Rosie Millard joins us again. Is sport the

new religion? If it is, it seems quite good. Today, it seems like

religion is more about division and community, and sport really is about

community. I went to was Dale in Yorkshire, and stood on the road

with thousands of other people and we cheered like crazy when the

Pellicano went past. It was horrific, a communal moments of

ecstasy, almost. -- peloton. You see these people that have devoted their

lives to hard work. You can do-it-yourself, you have run

Samaritans. I was standing there, with 40,000 other people, and it is

mad to run 26.4 miles, it's silly, but it is a discipline and something

you can achieve. We were with each other saying, come on, do it. So

there is sometimes more community in sport than religion, with the

religious divisions? Well, you have things like the rituals, songs, the

calendar, like the Christian calendar. On a deeper level, yes,

you have a sense of camaraderie and community. You also have faith,

despite adversity. You don't get the miracle that you prayed for. The

achievement, the fact you can get your body and spirit to move and do

something. That's the problem, often it comes down to the individual and

religion is much more, it is about into personal responsibility. Sport

is 90 minutes on the pitch, religion is 24-7, at its best, a hell ethical

framework. Liz, football supporter? I didn't even know the World Cup was

still on. We'll take that as a no. We will cross to a man that manages

to combine football and religion, Harry Ross, chaplain to Everton

Football Club. What do you do, how do you combine the roles? Well, I

have the church in the Court of Everton's football ground, 433

years. I am still the chaplain after four of retirement. We use the

church as a resource. When people come to the game on... Well, it used

to be Saturday, now it is virtually any day, any evening, you open the

doors, you let people come in. We open the hall doors, we let people

come in and have a cup of tea. Have sandwiches, something to eat, go

into the garden, go into church. You meet people where they are and that

is what we have always done. That is what Christ did. When he came in, he

met people were they are, he did not condemn them, he talked about what

should be and he lived it out. That is what I try to do as a football

supporter and Evertonians. Let's cross to York, Olivia rituals, what

are they saying there? Can you mix sport and religion? It was a week

ago that the streets of York were filled with people for the Tour De

France. Let's ask some cycling enthusiasts what they're made of it.

How devoted are you to cycling, John? Do you think that cycling is a

new religion here in Yorkshire? Possibly. I really enjoy riding at

the weekend with friends. It brings us together as a community. The Tour

De France was fantastic. How much time do you spend devoted to cycling

every week Weston Park A few hours a week, I know that a lot of people

spend more time than that. What was it like last Sunday?

Amazing, the time of our lives. There were some real devoted fans,

memories to cherish? Cyclists came from all over the world. I run a

bike shop and we had people from Australia, America, all over. Thank

you very much. As you can see, spectacular sights on the streets of

York today. Here are some views from cycling and easy as soon the city.

-- cycling enthusiasts in the city. It's incredible to see the amount of

passion and commitment? It was fantastic, the Olympics was a

unifying force, I was a sceptic, but he really felt good. I'm not a

football fan, but being a good Catholic, I prayed to St Jude. He

clearly wasn't listening, he was the patron saint of lost causes. What do

you think? Do you think the values of sport are... I don't know, great

to some people than the values of faith? One of the wonderful things

about sport is when you witness humans being fantastic. The horrible

thing about the dominant sport in Britain, football, is that it's

dominated by money and saturated by visceral hatred. I think there is

less of that. I think if you about visceral hatred, let's go to

religion. Indeed, so you might be right, it is the new religion. Yes,

there is that, the tribal emotion. We don't have professional fouls in

churches or synagogues. Major war is starting, you don't have that with

sport as the reason. But it is the arena of major violence, quite

often. Less so. Are we talking about industrial sport, a massive,

horrible problem, or are we talking about sport when humans are, as you

say, beautifully, at one with their bodies being fabulous, focused?

Let's quickly hear the voice, finally, of the Everton chaplain. Do

you agree with what you have been hearing so far? To some extent. I

think we meet people where they are. If people are involved in sport, in

football, of course, there is a lot of money involved, we taken from

where they are. Those footballers are ordinary people. They have the

same problems, troubles, worries as everybody else. That is what

chaplains are there for. That is what other men and women of religion

are therefore. Live it out, with these people, show that you have a

commitment to your sport, but you can combine the two. And pray for a

win? Of course, I prayed the best team wins and I usually pray that my

blue Heaven always wins! How often is he listening up there? He

listened very well last season, we did very well, from what we were. We

came up higher than our local team. It is rivalry, and it should be just

banter. Which is Liverpool, of course! Liverpool finished higher, I

think, as I remember. Didn't they? No, they didn't. Well, only

slightly. Reverend Ross, joining us from Everton Football Club. Let's

bring you up-to-date with our vote today. Should assisted dying be made

legal? That is what we asked. This is what you told us.

Let's have a quick reaction to that vote result from our guests. Liz, a

snapshot, we should say, but what do you think of that? That is

consistent, that is you think of that? That is

mostly save. I think when you take the time and have the opportunity to

describe to people what is the time and have the opportunity to

happening, I think that figure does go down. But just to say that a

similar figure, that is the amount of doctors that

similar figure, that is the amount public say yes, about 80% of them

also want capital punishment to be public say yes, about 80% of them

brought back. It doesn't always mean that what the public want they

should get, if it means that public safety for vulnerable people is in

jeopardy. That is what I think and others believe that this

jeopardy. That is what I think and do. It's not fit for purpose and we

shouldn't vote for it. Thank you very much to all of our guests in

the studio for their informed comment on today's debate. Thank you

for your company, as well. Thanks to those that voted and for those that

joined us from further afield, including the York Mystery Plays. We

are going to be back at the same time next Sunday. I

are going to be back at the same will join me. Until then, goodbye.

Imagine if you could talk to the animals.

Zoologist Lucy Cooke is going to show us how.

This is the first example we know of of infrared communication.