Opinion: Et tu, James?
Written by Laurence Boyce on 14th January 2008 – 10:54 pmRecently, James Graham has called me a bigot on Lib Dem Voice. (gasp!) As James is a blogger whom I admire and respect – blogger of the year no less – I have been stung into writing a riposte to this scurrilous charge. It was in the context of yet another debate on religion and the problem of Islam, that James essentially accused me of tarring all religious believers with the same brush. According to the big man, “religions are ultimately what you make of them.” When pressed as to whether Marxism, say, is also ultimately what you make of it, James replied, “I would have thought that is self-evident.” Excuse me?
Let us get one thing straight: Marxism is not simply what you might choose to make of it. While the task of nailing down the principles of Marxism might not be entirely trivial, we can nevertheless be clear in the main about what Marxism does and does not entail. For instance, it is surely uncontroversial to assert that Marxism comprises a belief in the common ownership of property and the means of production (a terrible idea by the way). Now I suppose there is nothing to stop somebody from saying, “I’m a Marxist, though I don’t believe in the common ownership of property and the means of production.” But on the whole, I prefer the simpler, “I’m not a Marxist.” It’s brief and to the point, and has the compelling advantage of not stretching the meaning of words beyond the bounds of reason.
Likewise, we can be clear about what religious belief entails, and what its consequences might be. And yet whenever I assert that the claims of religion are false, I know that I am bound to be met with the stunning insight that there is no homogenous object called “religion,” that religion comprises many different strands and styles of belief (no shit Sherlock!), and that I am therefore making a sweeping, and indeed bigoted, generalisation. I am not. Having been raised a Catholic, and having observed religion in its many forms, I think I know roughly what the deal is, and it is this: That there exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, prophets, prayer, and miracles. He wishes us to praise him, obey him, and love him unceasingly. Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.
This, I submit, is a reasonable definition of monotheistic religion which pretty much covers the faiths that are causing all the trouble at the present moment. Too broad a definition to be useful maybe? Not at all. Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth. And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.
Why is it so hard for us to speak plainly about the absurdity of religious belief? Why is Nick Clegg already brown-nosing faith groups when he is barely out of the traps? Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing? Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith? Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story? Why do we stay silent when millions of women worldwide suffer under the yoke of clerical oppression? Why are we still fiddling while the Middle East burns?
And why, in the face of all this carnage, do we imagine that an acceptable response is simply to water down the beliefs a bit and call ourselves “moderates”? Think how this might work in the political context. Suppose that the Liberal Democrat election manifesto contained a proposal to the effect that homosexuals should be put to death (as the Bible clearly stipulates in Leviticus 20:13). What would be an adequate restitution for allowing this hateful line into party policy? How about a spot of artful sophistry to patch things up? “Look, you really mustn’t take the manifesto so literally you know. It’s the interpretation which matters more than the actual words. Ultimately, it’s what you make of the policy that counts.” Happy now? In fact, nothing less than a total recantation would do, in the bid to salvage a political reputation which would in all likelihood be damaged beyond repair.
So please, at least on this occasion, spare me the mealy-mouthed justifications: that not all Christians take the Bible literally; that jihad is really about personal fulfilment, not the subjugation of infidels; that the struggle over the “Holy Land” has nothing to do with religion (there’s a clue in the name if you look closely); that it is important to distinguish between nice Christians, and nasty Christians; nice Muslims, and nasty Muslims; (and presumably nice Nazis, and nasty Nazis?) I’ve heard it all before, and frankly I’m not impressed. I know that you are nice – hey, some of my best friends are Christians! But your religious “moderation” – at once intellectually and theologically bankrupt – serves only (in the words of Sam Harris) to “provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.”
So my message to religious fundamentalists is … not a lot. There’s really no point in talking to you. To my nice moderate Christian friends: I beg you to find some honesty before the Armageddon so longed for by the aforementioned fruitcakes finally comes to pass. And to James, I say: Marxism is not just what you make of it, neither is religion, and calling a spade a donkey buys us precisely nothing.
* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.
Posted in Op-eds
14th January 2008 at 11:06 pm
1. Have you really given up your job to blog?
2. You are a bigot! You stated not long ago on a Question Time that you thought poverty should be ‘bred’ out of society…implying that it is a genetic issue rather than a social issue.
3. Even so, I’m very proud to have you as one of my facebook friends.
14th January 2008 at 11:07 pm
Sorry - should be ‘question time thread’ - I know you haven’t been on question time!!!
14th January 2008 at 11:33 pm
Do we really have to have Lib Dem Voice used as a repeated platform for these bizarre views?
14th January 2008 at 11:41 pm
Peter Bancroft, why don’t you write something to Lib Dem Voice? I think you seem to have some very interesting views, and I’d rather read more about them than the endless whining of Laurence Boyce. It seems that LDV has a serious shortage of guest articles, when they publish staff like this.
14th January 2008 at 11:43 pm
Actually, Jo, he has. I seed it.
Peter, I don’t think Lawrence’s views are bizarre. Strongly-worded, maybe, but not bizarre.
14th January 2008 at 11:43 pm
… And one day I’ll learn to spell Laurence.
14th January 2008 at 11:51 pm
3 - Peter, LDV is for members (and others) to voice their opinions. The comments thread allows readers to take the author to task, and those who feel motivated are welcome to contribute. That we published Laurence’s article, btw, is no reflection on the number of contributions we have coming in (just look at the recent Archive!) - what would be your reason for not publishing it?
LDV is committed actively to inviting contributions from all ranges of opinion, and we have asked Lib Dem members of different faith communities to write for the blog.
14th January 2008 at 11:58 pm
No I did not say anything like that Jo. My exact words were, “I’m going to try saying something that may be unpopular: the way to end child poverty is not to give birth if you are poor.” Notwithstanding the fact that I was in one of my provocative moods, there’s a sense in which this is self-evident. I’m certainly not advocating any Stalinist type control over people’s lives - it’s just a matter of personal responsibility. I don’t have a job, and I don’t have a great deal of money. Consequently, I think it would be the height of irresponsibility for me to father a child at this moment. But it’s obvious that not everyone thinks like that, and that to some extent the system is being abused. None of this is to advocate a punitive stance towards young girls who have accidentally got a bun in the oven. Quite the opposite. The state must help out first, and ask questions later. It’s just a case of balancing the assistance on the one hand, with, not a disapproving rhetoric, but perhaps some sort of urge towards greater responsibility. A bit vague I know.
Now what did you think of the article?
14th January 2008 at 11:59 pm
Well, if Laurence’s views are bizarre, I’m happy to join him in Bizardom (bizarridge…?)
15th January 2008 at 12:16 am
I don’t find Lawrence’s views bizarre either. What I find bizarre is the complete refusal to genuinely engage with religious claims, which so many people cleave to in the name of not “going on about it”.
15th January 2008 at 3:42 am
We must all be a bit cross eyed at the moment.
Marxists don’t believe in religion.
Even in todays China a person can get into a lot of trouble for preaching religion.
15th January 2008 at 7:49 am
“So my message to religious fundamentalists is … not a lot. There’s really no point in talking to you.”
Religous fundamentalists and Mr Boyce seem to have this feature in common. Let’s move on.
15th January 2008 at 8:18 am
7 - It doesn’t raise the quality or the respect of the LDV, if it publishes complaints of certain individuals against others who said something about them in the comments thread as “Opinion” articles. Please let not LDV descend to a scene of showdown. If it happens in the comments thread, well, that probably can’t be helped much, but don’t let the quarrels contaminate the actual articles.
15th January 2008 at 9:02 am
13 - If the article was just a retort I would agree with you, but I think Laurence reaises some interesting points. To be honest, I’m slightly suprised at the tone of the comments here (maybe there is history with the author I am unaware of?). I think the relationship between politics and religion is both fascinating and important. And something which we should be prepared to talk about as a responsible political party.
I think a number of commentators want to have things both ways. On the one hand they wish to allow religious individuals to pick and choose their own ‘interpretation’. Yet they also don’t want us to offend religious leadership. So we have to listen to the ‘Christian Community’ or the ‘Muslim Community’ as if there exists such homogenous defined communities.
If we are accepting people’s individual right to be a ‘Christian’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Hindu’ by dint of their own interpretation and definition, then the ‘community’ we would lazily ascribe them too no longer has any resonance. If individuals have their own interpretation, then Bishops, Immams etc DO NOT speak on their behalf and they should have no higher status in a democracy than you or me. But we all know that they do.
There is fascinating issue here which has been rolling on for centuries. And one it would serve us well to talk about.
That said, one thing I must pick up Laurence on is his reference to Clegg’s alleged ‘brown nosing’. I think the story he has provided as evidence of this is a well balanced and responsible piece which says a hell of a lot that religious groups would not to want to hear, least of all on religious schools. I went to a Catholic primary school and as such spent the first decade of my life with only a passing awareness of other religions. This must not be how any children are educated in our country anymore.
15th January 2008 at 9:24 am
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
15th January 2008 at 9:26 am
15 - If its that boring to you, just don’t read it.
15th January 2008 at 9:35 am
Laurence’s views aren’t bizarre. Far from it, they’re as mainstream as can be.
The Lib Dems could make substantial gains with a more strident stance on secularism. It’s most unlikely the other parties would be willing to follow. At least to begin with.
15th January 2008 at 10:20 am
If individuals have their own interpretation, then Bishops, Imams etc DO NOT speak on their behalf and they should have no higher status in a democracy than you or me.
That’s an excellent point. I’d never thought of it like that. Who’d have thought that religion would try to have it both ways, eh?! Thanks for your support Kev, and everyone else.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Isn’t it telling that none of my detractors have thus far been able to counter a single point from the article? If you don’t address the argument, then you’ve lost the argument. Religion is inherently problematical. It’s not “just what you make of it.”
The Lib Dems could make substantial gains with a more strident stance on secularism. It’s most unlikely the other parties would be willing to follow.
We are so missing a trick here.
15th January 2008 at 10:30 am
Lawrence wrote: “Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.”
Actually, that isn’t what mainstream Protestants believe. If Lawrence only knows about one religion, then he needs to stop pontificating about all monotheistic religions.
He also wrote: “And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.”
Sorry Lawrence, perhaps I was asleep at the time. Which science experiment demonstrated there was no afterlife and that God was not a loving father (or a mean father, or a loving mother, etc)? And which philosopher has managed to debunk these claims?
And, while we’re on science, quoting snippets from the Bible without understanding the faith you are criticising is like quoting randomly from an advanced physics textbook with no more than the shakiest understanding of GCSE theory.
Evan Harris (I think it was Evan — if not, Evan, forgive me) was on much sounder ground on Saturday when he agreed that evangelicalism was not the same as fundamentalism, and fundamentalism was not the same as extremism.
The purpose of the joint Lib Dem Christian Forum, Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and Lib Dem Secularist and Humanist meeting on Saturday which you were at, Lawrence, was to explore issues of faith, non-faith, politics and society in a constructive way. For most people, I think it was a success. But perhaps you didn’t see it that way — if what you took away from it was “I’m right, they’re wrong, we need to get them out of our party” Which, unless I’ve read it wrong (all a matter of interpretation, perhaps) is what your article does seem to be saying.
15th January 2008 at 10:31 am
Sorry Laurence, I’ve been spelling your name wrong. My apologies.
15th January 2008 at 10:53 am
Laurence has given us quick and easy definitions both of Marxism and of (monotheistic) religion. There are points where I might want to quibble, but it is another word that seems to be in greater need of clarification.
What do we mean by ’secularism’? The word is often used, especially recently in Lib Dem blogs, but what exactly it entails is more difficult to pin down. If it means removing the historical privileges of the Christian faith in the political arena then I agree. Disestablish the Church of England? Yes. I am a Baptist Christian, and disestablishment has long been something Baptists have argued for … which is one reason for the historical link between Baptists (and other free churches) and the Liberal Party. In fact the first recorded argument in English for religious freedom for all (including those with whom we fundamentally disagree) was penned by Thomas Helwys, a Baptist minister in the early seventeenth century.
Should people systematically be discriminated against (or towards) because of their faith or lack of faith? No. We want no more Test Acts or similar discriminatory legislation, be they establishing privilege for Christians, for other faith communities or for those who reject theism.
Should religious language be allowed in the public arena, with people using religious language and justifications for or against particular policies? Of course! It is an aspect of freedom of speech. It might pursuade some and antagonise others, but it has to be allowed.
Should Laurence and others be allowed to argue strongly against the beliefs and influence of religion(s)? Of course.
Wherein lies the essence of ’secularism’? Under some definitions I can be counted a supporter. Under other definitions, I am not.
15th January 2008 at 11:13 am
8 - I didn’t read it! I already decided what you were going to say before I got past the first paragraph…then went to bed.
You need to learn how to edit! I’m not one for huge articles online - apart from being very slightly hyperactive and unable to read huge chunks of writing - I just never feel in the mood when I’m online.
Also my ears go numb whenever someone starts talking about religion after being brought up catholic…which is a shame really as I’ve probably missed out on some really fantastic lively debates.
Sorry!
15th January 2008 at 11:26 am
Thanks Jo, that made me feel really good.
15th January 2008 at 11:34 am
Bill, secularism in the strict sense of the word means separation of church and state. I’m going much further than that, but all I’m doing is making an argument. While some legislation might be necessary, principally I want conversation, not legislation.
15th January 2008 at 11:57 am
Actually, that isn’t what mainstream Protestants believe. If Laurence only knows about one religion, then he needs to stop pontificating about all monotheistic religions.
Well go on then Martin. Tell us what mainstream Protestants do believe about the afterlife.
Sorry Laurence, perhaps I was asleep at the time. Which science experiment demonstrated there was no afterlife and that God was not a loving father (or a mean father, or a loving mother, etc)? And which philosopher has managed to debunk these claims?
OK, that’s a big one. I’ll try to make a proper response later on, but I guess that Hume and Darwin are the key figures. But in the meantime, do remind me which science experiment has proved the non-existence of Father Christmas?
Quoting snippets from the Bible without understanding the faith you are criticising is like quoting randomly from an advanced physics textbook with no more than the shakiest understanding of GCSE theory.
Well that’s true. I shouldn’t really criticise what I don’t understand, seeing as I have no qualifications in theology - an entirely made up subject.
For most people, I think [the workshop] was a success. But perhaps you didn’t see it that way - if what you took away from it was “I’m right, they’re wrong, we need to get them out of our party.”
No, I thought it was OK - a bit cramped maybe. I only got one chance to speak, and I made what I thought was a reasonably constructive point which Simon Hughes repeated in his summary. But tell me this: if religious folk don’t think, “I’m right, they’re wrong,” then why don’t they send their kids to a faith schools of a different faith, in the interests of community relations? And no, I definitely don’t want you drummed out of the party. Who would I wind up then?
15th January 2008 at 11:59 am
I must say - I’m struggling to find any reasonable contradiction of Laurence’s article in the above comments.
Lots of people accuse him of ignorance and bloody-mindedness, but none really pick up on the main points and even come close to criticising them.
If he has misunderstood religion to such a gross level, then why not succinctly explain where and how he’s wrong?
15th January 2008 at 1:16 pm
Laurence,
I was going to wade in and attempt to defend religion here, but I really can’t with any great veracity. I mean, the general thrust of your argument is that “religion makes people do stupid things” and that is undoubtedly true.
However, I can’t help feeling that there is a bit of simplification going on here: picture a world with no religion in it. Does it have no violence? No hatred or oppression? Or is religion partly being used today as a tool by those who want to commit violence and oppression without reference to religious belief? Of course it is.
15th January 2008 at 1:52 pm
Picture a world with no religion in it. Does it have no violence? No hatred or oppression?
I’m not promising Utopia. That’s what religion does.
Or is religion partly being used today as a tool by those who want to commit violence and oppression without reference to religious belief?
Of course that is true to a certain extent. But it’s a bit like the argument over guns. “It’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.” Well no, it’s both in fact - and religion, like guns, is simply lethal.
15th January 2008 at 2:02 pm
Laurence, I think that you are being a trifle simplistic here. Religion can, and does, inspire loonie to commit atrocities in the name of faith, and this seems to apply to the majority of religions, whether monotheistic or not.
However, and I didn’t detect this from the article, religion - however spurious you may see it as being - can also inspire people to acts of great kindness and humanity.
As no one will ever know whether there is an afterlife during their (physical) lifetime I think a little ‘live and let live’ should apply. Science will also never be able to prove what happened at creation, the human mind does not appear to be able to understand what happened before the Big Bang or when.
15th January 2008 at 2:06 pm
Gosh - like the google ad entitled ‘Jesus loves you’ - always used to think that was highly patronising…and what if I don’t love him back?!
Sorry Laurence don’t take it personally!
15th January 2008 at 2:56 pm
I know these ads are self optimizing, but just now as I looked one of the Adsense panels after comment 20 had “Jesus Loves You” on one side and “Customer Opinion Surveys” on the other. Very good.
15th January 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hayek wrote:
“Unlike the rationalism of the French Revolution, true liberalism has no quarrel with religion, and I can only deplore the militant and essentially illiberal antireligionism which animated so much of nineteenth-century Continental liberalism. That this is not essential to liberalism is clearly shown by its English ancestors, the Old Whigs, who, if anything, were much too closely allied with a particular religious belief. What distinguishes the liberal from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.”
And I reckon got it pretty much right.
15th January 2008 at 3:26 pm
15 Yes, whilst you are free to worship as you please in China, it is my understanding that it is illegal to try to convert others to your ‘faith’.
14 I agree with Kev that Clegg was not really brown nosing - saying that faith schools are important could be interpreted as a statement of current fact, rather than that HE thinks they SHOULD be important….
15th January 2008 at 3:50 pm
Liberal Hammer, I know there is good and bad in religion, but the two are linked. One group benefits at the expense of another. In this sense (and indeed in just about every other sense), religion is a profoundly conservative enterprise.
15th January 2008 at 4:19 pm
Laurence, you know I basically agree with you that religion - in all its forms - is a load of… well, I am atheist to my bones. But I still fail, after reading probably thousands of words from you on the subject, to understand what it is you are so angry about. We’re all secularists here - religious or not. You have *not* demonstrated in this article or in any other that one group *is* consistently benefiting at the expense of another. The argument is highly qualitative - this case here, that example there. The very fact that it *is* arguable ought to at least give you pause for thought as a self-styled rational. And so long as it remains arguable, we *cannot* as a party take any sort of “action” or “stand” against religion (whatever that would look like) further than we already do - by being secularist and disestablishmentarian.
And I still don’t understand how you square your trenchant line with the most basic tenet of liberalism. This is basically another rant telling people how they should think. And it does begin to look, after a while, as if you’re an uncritical Dawkins footsoldier who has heard the cry for evanglical atheism and taken it to heart in order to satisfy a yen for dramatic self-image. Your anger begins to look like posturing. I say this in the probability that it’s what others are thinking. It is therefore potentially damaging to the whole cause of secularism.
I know you will absorb this attack with your usual good humour. I’ve been trying for a while to put my finger on why I keep disagreeing with what you write when I hold exactly the same position as you, and this, personal though it may sound, is unfortunately it.
15th January 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thanks Laurence for clarifying your understanding of secularism as separation of church and state, and also for making it clear that you are going much further than advocating mere secularism in your argument.
As a Christian, I am in favour of the separation of church and state. However, quite what separation of church and state entails in practice is in itself controversial and involves matters of interpretation where advocates of separation may disagree. And separating church and state is different from separating religion and politics. (Stephen L. Carter’s book “God’s Name in Vain: The Rights and Wrongs of Religion in Politics” addressing the situation in the USA is illuminating on this.)
I am a manure and ice cream man. Ice cream is good for eating. Manure is good for fertilising. But mix them up and they become good for neither. Separating church and state actually helps maintain the integrity of both! But even with separation, religious convictions will continue to influence political decision-making. If a faith-commitment involves the whole of life, and not merely private religious practices, then what else could you expect? And, of course, if I understand Laurence correctly, it is precisely this influence that he considers to be so malign.
15th January 2008 at 6:52 pm
I am a manure and ice cream man. Ice cream is good for eating. Manure is good for fertilising. But mix them up and they become good for neither.
Wise words indeed for a man of God.
Separating church and state actually helps maintain the integrity of both!
Yes, it’s obvious really. So why hasn’t it happened? The very fact that we are having argument at all tells us that there’s something very odd going on.
15th January 2008 at 6:58 pm
I read this carefully several times and am not clear what practical point is being made. Laurence doesn’t like religion and is clearly very angry about. That’s much I had gathered from previous discussions. There is no balanced discussion of the contribution that Religions have made to art, literature, social reform, architecture, political philosophy or indeed liberalism. Just a blanket condemnation of all fundamentalism. The idea that all believers aren’t fundamentalists is dismissed with a rhetorically referrence to “Nice Nazi’s”.
I welcome the article being published at I don’t think it does laurences case much good but at heart its a prime example of the thoughtless, self reinforcing and blinkered fundamentalism that he seeks to critique in the first place.
15th January 2008 at 7:29 pm
Except David, that not one single person, including you, has actually addressed the argument I am making. I am arguing that religion is inherently problematical. I repeat from paragraph four:
Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife - the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth.
Répondez!
15th January 2008 at 7:35 pm
But I still fail, after reading probably thousands of words from you on the subject, to understand what it is you are so angry about.
Basically, this.
You have *not* demonstrated in this article or in any other that one group *is* consistently benefiting at the expense of another.
That particular argument is more of a metaphysical hypothesis, albeit one that I am particularly fond of. But where does the energy for all this “goodness” come from, if it doesn’t come from God? Of course a religious person might say, “ah but there is a God.” Except that they very rarely do argue that. Instead, they tend to argue - as David has just done - that religions produce lots of fine art and literature or do lots of charity work, which I find very telling. Perhaps it’s just too embarrassing to admit that you really believe in an invisible man in the sky.
And I still don’t understand how you square your trenchant line with the most basic tenet of liberalism. This is basically another rant telling people how they should think.
Because, Alix, I don’t blindly follow any tenets. I try to think things out from first principles. And yes I am telling people how they should think. We do it all the time. “Don’t be racist.” And the punishment for disagreeing with me is . . . nothing! Beats eternal hell fire any day.
And it does begin to look, after a while, as if you’re an uncritical Dawkins footsoldier.
No, I’m much more of a Sam Harris fan. I’ve actually become a bit frustrated with Dawkins of late.
Your anger begins to look like posturing.
Well I’m certainly not opposed to a spot of theatrics.
It is therefore potentially damaging to the whole cause of secularism.
Now listen up darling, because I’m going to say this only once. When we have a situation, as we have in this country, where kids are being taught creationism, 150 years after Darwin - nobody, but nobody, is going to tell me that I’m “not doing it right.” If you don’t like the way I say it, then you had better start saying it the “right way” whatever that is - nothing would please me more. But I have heard absolutely nothing from Liberal Democrats on this, since Jenny Tonge challenged Tony Blair at PMQs about a million years ago. It so frustrates me how we can’t see the way the wind is blowing. We will come to the party very late, doubtless claiming to have been secularists all along, which is true in a sense - but only in a sense, as we make absolutely nothing of our secularist credentials.
15th January 2008 at 7:44 pm
One of Laurence’s key arguments is that the good that religion does is necessarily counterbalanced by the evil that it does. While it is possible that this may be true it is also possible that it isn’t, and as it is not really susceptible to proof one way or the other it isn’t much of an argument. What is objectively true (though I’m sorry, I don’t have the references) is that those who profess a religious belief give a higher proportion of their income to good causes and spend more of their time on voluntary work than those who do not have such a belief. I have made this argument before and Laurence dismisses it without making serious points to counter it.
15th January 2008 at 7:48 pm
“I read this carefully several times and am not clear what practical point is being made.”
I think the point is that Laurence quite reasonably objects to being labeled a “bigot”.
A quick glance at dictionary.com gives me the definition: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion” (there are others).
That may seem to cover Laurence’s opinion regarding religion. But it seems to me that “bigot” is a pejorative term, implying a prejudicial even irrational opinion that is unsupported by logical argument.
And it does seem that people (and I mean this in general so I apologise to James Graham, as it appears to do him a disservice) would like to use the term to shut down debate: Laurence wishes to express a forceful condemnation of – in the instance quoted – Islam; the reply comes “you’re a bigot, end of.”
The case set out above certainly shows that Laurence has reasons for his opinions, that people of religion do have some case to answer, and that no one should merely dismiss him with a word.
15th January 2008 at 7:52 pm
“give a higher proportion of their income to good causes”
If we’re going to look at charitable-giving trends then we could also note that Tories give more money to charity than LD or Labour voters.
I can cite this, too - http://tinyurl.com/2tdfv4
15th January 2008 at 7:52 pm
“What is objectively true (though I’m sorry, I don’t have the references)”
As a completely non-religious person who has volunteered LOTS of time for CAB, I, for one, am not accepting this without references.
I would also suspect that, if it IS true, it’s to do with /disposable/ income and time. Those who are at the bottom of the food chain tend to be more worried about what’s happening in this life to worry about the next; religious people tend to have higher incomes, hence the noxious American Neocon belief that richness is caused by religiosity (rather than the fact that it’s the rich who have time to be religious).
15th January 2008 at 7:54 pm
Laurence, you are right I’m not really engaging with your arguement because it think your “Nice Nazi” comment really destroys, holes beneath the water line, the whole argument you are making. Its so cheap and offensive ( Remember Bonhoffer?) I just can’t be bothered.
You previously published an article on here arguing that the party become a champion of secularism and that there was a political market to be cornered here. Thats a much more interesting line. Why don’t you dust that off and pad it out with some policy proposals. But at the moment you are just acting like a athiestic Ian Paisley.
15th January 2008 at 8:35 pm
“Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story?”
Precisely! A literalist interpretation of the Qur’an (see Wahhabism) typically underpins the fundamentalist view of Islam espoused by radical islamists like Bin Laden and Qutb.
The fact remains that the mainstream interpretations of Islam are peaceful, as is the case with Christianity. The theological merits of Islam as a religion are something else altogether, and as an agnostic i would naturally disagree with much of it.
The fact remains, however, that it is simply Lazy to effectively assume, on the basis of a literalist reading of the Qur’an, that Islam is an inherently violent religion. The current problems of fundamentalism and terrorism have a plethora of socio-economic and geo-political causes which are far more important in understanding the terrorist threat.
15th January 2008 at 8:49 pm
44. I would be most surprised if there was a positive correlation in most countries between greater income and religiosity: in fact both the Catholic church and Islam attract the majority of their adherents from the less well off. In Britain the C of E has tended to be ‘the Conservative Party at prayer’, but the Catholic and nonconformist churches have historically attracted the greater part of their support from those with less wealth.
15th January 2008 at 9:24 pm
I bet you a tenner that the research you are carefully not citing was conducted in either the UK or the US, though, Tony, because poor countries exploited by, er, I mean saved by Catholicism et al generally can’t afford to conduct academic studies of this nature. We don’t need to consider world religious adherence, only the adherence in the country in which the research was conducted.
15th January 2008 at 9:38 pm
Sure, religion is used by the ruling classes in third world countries to keep a grip on the masses, but I don’t think that invalidates what I am suggesting about this country (I don’t know about the USA). I am an atheist too, but I don’t think that allows me to look at the argument in a biased way, and the facts as I understand them (perhaps someone can prove me wrong) show that those with religious beliefs are more likely to be engaged with their communities in altruistic ways than those without.
15th January 2008 at 9:42 pm
And, as I say, you may be right, but I’d like to see a citation before I’m prepared to believe it. I want to to know who did the research, who sponsored it, what the sample size was, etc, before I’m prepared to accept it as fact.
And I’m not an atheist.
15th January 2008 at 10:41 pm
Mmm…I can find out why ‘Jesus loves me’ or call a call centre to participate in a dull customer survey on my consumer satisfaction…know what gooogle ad I’ll be clicking in that instance then…
15th January 2008 at 11:11 pm
Jo, I have “50% of luxury handbags” and “What is progesterone?”
15th January 2008 at 11:12 pm
OFF luxury handbags, even.
16th January 2008 at 12:04 am
Laurence, I’m not convinced by many of your arguments here.
Taking my cues from liberalism as much as possible, I come to the following conclusion: religion is a private matter and people are entitled to believe in whatever the hell they want. Not you, nor anyone else, can tell them otherwise. And in ‘anyone else’ I also include, in fact especially emphasise, the government. It as absolutely not the business of politicians to tell people what they should or should not believe, and belief in that principle is one of the many reasons why I’m a Lib Dem.
“Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing?” - because it is not and hopefully never will be the business of politicians to legislate on the existence of the afterlife. This should be patently obvious and I can only assume that you’re being obtuse in asking the question at all.
“Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith?” - because, if we observe the statistics, there is only the weakest of correlations between religious faith and terrorism, if any at all. I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. Stupid people have been doing stupid things for a lot longer than Islam, Christianity or any other religion has been in existence, and they’ll carry on doing stupid things long after the last church and the last mosque are nothing but archaeological sites. Your very phrase contains within it the evidence of its incorrectness: you are quite clearly under the influence of the availability heuristic - you’re making your judgements based on a handful of extremely salient examples which were extremely well-publicised, not least by the efforts of the terrorists themselves in making the videos. Do the actual sums and work out the number of Muslims (say) who are terrorists compared to the number who aren’t. Then correct for economic and social factors, access to education and so on. I highly doubt that you would produce any evidence suggesting that religion causes terrorism. I’m sorry to come to that conclusion myself - I don’t have any love of religion at all and think that following religion is a particularly stupid thing to do, but that doesn’t entitle me to any great sense of superiority over the religious. It certainly doesn’t entitle my views to primacy in law.
This is where you are both right and infuriatingly wrong at the same time. You’re entitled to your views on religion, but I don’t think that you’re entitled to elevate them to political principle, any more than a Christian would be entitled to elevate his beliefs to political principle either. You’re going to hate this, but from the point of view of a liberal, there’s no difference between you and a Christian: you’re just two people with views. Neither has the power to assert their views over the views of the other. Most religious people have no problem with secularism. We are a broadly secular society and can happily remain so without the need to lambast religion and the religious. Campaign for secularism and I’ll gladly agree with you on the basis that it’s a good idea in its own right. Campaign for it on the basis that you want to bash religion and I (and quite a few others, I’d imagine) will be unable to follow you. And, for your own sake, I suggest that you think more carefully before assuming that you’re right. In more than a few of the comments you’ve made in follow-up to the original post, you’ve made points without backing them up by particularly rigorous logic (name-dropping Hume and Darwin does not an argument make), and this only damages your case. Nobody likes to be told that they’re biased and getting carried away with themselves, but I fear that you are.
16th January 2008 at 12:39 am
Blimey, thanks Rob! I’m going to have to look at that tomorrow.
16th January 2008 at 12:45 am
Alix@35, I think it would be unfair to Richard Dawkins to describe Laurence as his uncritical footsoldier.
Anyway, on to the main point…
To see whether Laurence is bigoted, I think we would need to observe his dealings with actual religious people. I don’t think finding someone’s beliefs laughable is sufficient.
However I would like to add my name to the list of people who are sick of Laurence banging on about this on LDV.
What is particularly galling is that Laurance is siding with the theocrats, in trying to convince believers that they cannot be liberals. What a stupid thing to do.
Yes, it would be nice if other people agreed with my choice of “faith identity” (secular humanist) and it is all well and good to try to convince people who are willing to listen. But it is not an activity that I would bring into the Liberal Democrats or any party because we are here to build a coalition around liberalism not around atheism.
Whether society is liberal matters a great deal more than what other people believe about the supernatural.
16th January 2008 at 12:51 am
I think the point is that Laurence quite reasonably objects to being labelled a “bigot.”
Thanks for the support Richard. Actually I don’t really care what anyone calls me. It just seemed like a good excuse for a bun fight!
The case set out above certainly shows that Laurence has reasons for his opinions, that people of religion do have some case to answer, and that no one should merely dismiss him with a word.
Don’t be too hard on my detractors. They’re on particularly bad form today.
16th January 2008 at 1:02 am
Laurence, you are right. I’m not really engaging with your argument because I think your “Nice Nazi” comment really destroys, holes beneath the water line, the whole argument you are making. It’s so cheap and offensive.
Oh I’m sorry David, but I’m afraid I was trying to make a serious point. You see the debate kicked off because James said that religion is “what you make of it.” So I asked, “is Marxism what you make of it?” - thinking that would be checkmate. But James amazed me by saying that Marxism is “self-evidently” what you make of it. Of course I now realise my mistake. I should have said, “is fascism what you make of it?” Or in the abstract, how faulty does an ideology have to be before it ceases to be just “what you make of it.” Does James think that fascism is “what you make of it,” or does he think that fascism is inherently evil? And does holding the latter viewpoint make you a “bigot.” I suppose James could always come and tell us himself, but then he’s never commented on any of my articles so I’m guessing that he’s not about to start now.
What is objectively true is that those who profess a religious belief give a higher proportion of their income to good causes and spend more of their time on voluntary work than those who do not have such a belief. I have made this argument before and Laurence dismisses it without making serious points to counter it.
I don’t dismiss it Tony. In fact I think that’s probably true. But please explain how the proportion of income donated to good causes can have any bearing upon whether Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky. It doesn’t. It can’t - for a reason that is so elementary that it aptly demonstrates how far from the shady groves of reason we have strayed. It is because the future cannot influence the past. The “religions do lots of useful charity work” argument simply betrays a lack of commitment to the truth.
What is particularly galling is that Laurence is siding with the theocrats, in trying to convince believers that they cannot be liberals. What a stupid thing to do.
Well yes, I happen to think that religion is antithetical to liberal values. So is it then “stupid” to speak the truth as I see it?
The current problems of fundamentalism and terrorism have a plethora of socio-economic and geo-political causes which are far more important in understanding the terrorist threat.
Oh yes, of course. Socio-economic causes. Poor old Osama bin Laden is so oppressed, he must be down to his last few billion by now.
If we’re going to look at charitable-giving trends then we could also note that Tories give more money to charity than LD or Labour voters.
And of course Tories are more religious too. It’s all starting to make sense!
16th January 2008 at 1:07 am
Sorry, I haven’t had the time to plough all the way through this thread. There are so many other things I have to do (sleep being one of them).
But I cannot let mention of Richard Dawkins pass without directing readers the following link:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/Dawkins.html
A trait which materialists of the Marxist persuasion and those who favour a market economy share is their fraudulent claim to stand for “science” and “reason”.
Look at the link and see how “scientific” Dawkins is being here.
16th January 2008 at 3:06 am
Meanwhile,at the Burning Bush- just in case
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image:FireExtinguisher.jpg
16th January 2008 at 10:19 am
Rob, one comment you made struck me as quite eccentric.
“It as absolutely not the business of politicians to tell people what they should or should not believe, and belief in that principle is one of the many reasons why I’m a Lib Dem.”
Generally you’re correct. Politicians banging on about the generic evils of religion has little benefit and is more likely to be counterproductive. Russian state oppression of the orthodox church has not exactly boosted the cause of secular reason in that country.
The absolutism of your statement though is not right. It’s implying that politicians should suspend all critical faculties the moment something is invoked as a matter of faith or religion. Something they certainly do not do when religion is not involved. And secularists are surely right to argue that religious should not have special status against other forms of argument and philosophy.
Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong and will not be permitted, and they want other people to understand and share that belief.
I don’t think Laurence’s implication that a politically sponsored moral war between secularists and theists would be a good thing is at all right. However he’s right to suggest that on matters like education reform, some invocation of secular principles would be no bad thing. The school system for example really should not still being used to promote one religion against another or none, these are surely matters for personal choice when you reach the age of maturity?
That is a good example of a secular principle worth shouting about.
And to those of you attacking Laurence for saying what he thinks on this forum, or just the way he says it…
Good grief, get over yourselves. This isn’t an official party publication and Laurence isn’t an official party spokesperson. Nor is he saying something so appalling that it’s unfit to print. His articles get by far the most engagement and commentary on this site and I for one am grateful to see Liberal Democrats who can write in the provocative manner of the Daily Mail or Mirror rather than always the reasonable monotone of the Guardian and Economist.
16th January 2008 at 11:07 am
“Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong and will not be permitted, and they want other people to understand and share that belief.”
Female genital mutilation is an act, not a belief. Opposing it has absolutely nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with far more fundamental principles of people’s rights over their own bodies.
Politicians can’t criticise people for thinking that FGM might be a good idea, but they can criticise people for (and legislate against) carrying out the act.
16th January 2008 at 11:15 am
I don’t think Laurence’s implication that a politically sponsored moral war between secularists and theists would be a good thing is at all right.
Thanks for the support Andy. But I don’t really want a moral war - more of a custard pie fight. In fact, at the breakout group I meant to propose that in the summer the Lib Dem Christians and secularists organise one on College Green. We could get the Daily Politics to cover it which would help bring these issues out into the open. The trouble is that if I had suggested this, everyone would have thought that I was joking. But I’m not. I’d really like to see this happen.
16th January 2008 at 11:42 am
Laurence@58 said:
“Well yes, I happen to think that religion is antithetical to liberal values. So is it then “stupid” to speak the truth as I see it?”
Well yes, that is what I said.
And much but not all religion is antithetical to liberal values. That which isn’t, perhaps, isn’t in your mind religion at all. However it may still be religion in the mind of the believer.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, some particular liberal believer is living a paradox, and you awaken them to this sufficiently that they are moved to choose between their liberalism and their religion. What are the possible consequences? The number of believers will go down or stay the same. Fine. However the number of liberals will go down or stay the same. Ouch. Thus your argument, ought to be (and is) one that our political opponents make and we oppose.
16th January 2008 at 11:55 am
Rob Knight wrote:
“Politicians can’t criticise people for thinking that FGM might be a good idea”
I hope you’re kidding. This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k., they’re just unlucky to get caught. That’s not exactly a robust rehabilitation programme.
Complete moral relativism is just as unatrractive in politicians as narrow absolutism.
16th January 2008 at 12:19 pm
“This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k.”
Should we punish people who are not thieves but think that stealing is ok? I’d say obviously not - they’ve done nothing wrong, they just hold an opinion. Go over what you said again: “This is rather like arguing that we shouldn’t criticise thieves for thinking stealing is o.k.”. The reason they are valid targets for criticism is because they are thieves. It’s because they’ve done something which causes harm to others. I make an argument saying that actions are a different category from beliefs, and you rebut this with an example based on a category of people defined by their actions!
Returning to your earlier point, let me try to clarify what I mean: “Politicians, for example I believe are right to say that female genital mutilation in the name of some cultural or religious practice is wrong”.
Female genital mutilation is wrong, full stop. I really do not care why people do it, I care about making sure that they don’t and punishing them if they do. It is beyond our capabilities to investigate people’s beliefs; it may be entirely impossible for us to fully understand the workings of the minds of others. For this reason, we should act based on observable evidence: the actions people carry out. Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them, what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.
16th January 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Should we punish people who are not thieves but think that stealing is ok?”
No Rob, we should educate them, or disagree with them if they make that point in public.
I’m minded as an example to cite the Vicar on Thought for the Day who argued that shop-lifting from supermarkets is o.k. as it amounts to a form of redistribution from the rich to the poor.
He’s entitled to hold that view, I’m entitled to disagree with him and suggest he’s encouraging criminal behaviour with his ill-judged and irresponsible remarks.
“I make an argument saying that actions are a different category from beliefs”
Of course, but criticising daft views, which is what Laurence is arguing for in respect of religion to give it equal treatment other forms of opinion, is different to punishing someone for holding a daft view and then acting on it. I think that’s pretty clear isn’t it?
“Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them”
Um yes it does for two key reasons. Firstly so you can act to prevent criminal behaviour before harm has taken place. Second so you can rehabilitate offenders.
A good example of that is how you deal with someone using the Bible as justification for gay-hate crimes. Sure the crux of their punishment would be based on what crime they actually commit. But it would be rather better if there had been education in advance to make it clear the Bible has got this wrong in the view of our secular society in the hope of prevention. And some education in prison afterwards about respecting others regardless of whether your religion defines them as evil.
So in that respect I disagree with your assertion that “what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.” That is only half the picture, unless you defining education and rehabilitation as punishment.
Understanding why people commit crimes is really very important.
16th January 2008 at 1:10 pm
Rob & Andy, I’m not sure you two are really disagreeing much.
We should oppose words with words and actions with actions. Neither of you is arguing for the use of force or law against the belief or expression of bad ideas. And neither is arguing that you shouldn’t disagree with people who express bad ideas.
The possible disagreement is over the appropriateness of moral condemnation of holding bad ideas. I suggest that error is not contemptible unless that error results from recklessness. So believing, say, in the literal truth of one of the nasty bits of the bible should not necessarily be condemned, but should be disagreed with. “Criticise” unfortunately is a loaded and ambiguous term, where I think we need a clearer distinction between disagreement and condemnation.
And while I think recklessly endorsing wicked moral principles should be condemned, I don’t think it should be prohibited. Politicians need to be triply careful condemning things they don’t want to prohibit because people will misunderstand.
16th January 2008 at 1:12 pm
Laurence @ 40
“Basically this.”
The whole does-religion-make-people-do-bad-things argument is being rehashed constantly, on this thread for a start. It’s not a given. What I mean when I say I don’t understand why you’re angry is I genuinely don’t understand what you want to *happen*. If you have a way forward for secularism, let’s hear it. Did I miss a critical article in which you said something more constructive than that all religious people are cretins and the party should repeatedly tell them so for their own good?
“That particular argument is more of a metaphysical hypothesis…”
That whole para is misplaced slightly I think; I take it you have interpreted my “benefits” in the sense of “the benefits that have arisen from religion”. Actually what I meant was that it is impossible to prove that religous people of any stripe *benefit* over non-religious people in society as a whole *as a result of their religion*. There are too many qualitative arguments in both directions. You can’t throw it all into a sort of cosmic balance and decide which side is “winning”. The only real sticking point is secularism, which as you say somewhere above, is no longer what you’e really concerned with.
“Now listen up darling…”
Right, this is where you start to make a bit more sense. Creationism we can have an argument about. Needless to say I loathe the idea that it might be taught, and tend, when I think this may impinge on “pure” liberalism, to fall back on the little bit of the preamble that talks about no-one being “enslaved by ignorance or conformity”. I don’t know whether, in the People’s Republic of Mortimer, this would lead to the teaching of creationism being unconditionally banned, but I am open to discussion on the point.
Andy @ 61, this isn’t a question of whining about having our widdle feelings hurt by the big bad Laurence. It’s a question of practicalities. Whatever it is Laurence wants the party to do, he is incapable of expressing it without surrounding it with fire and brimstone (as it were) which takes the focus off secularism and onto, well, Laurence. If he focussed the admirable qualities you point out more on, say, how to practically achieve a liberal policy that limits the teaching of creationism, and less on being the Great High King of All the Atheists, we might might even have got somewhere by now.
16th January 2008 at 1:17 pm
Rob Knight said: “Certain actions are banned, we call these ‘crimes’. It doesn’t matter why someone does them, what matters is that we punish them for it when they do and, by so doing, we demonstrate society’s view of these actions.”
Wrong. A crime is usally more than an action. Most crimes (and all crimes that are punishable by imprisonment) have a mens rea component. Crimes of strict liability, or quasi-crimes, may lead to a fine, but not a stain on one’s character.
It most certainly DOES matter why someone does them. Crimes of specific intent can only be committed intentionally, while crimes of basic intent may be committed recklessly. So the “why” is of paramount importance.
Conversely, ALL crimes must have an actus reus. I was taught at Sunday school that thinking of doing something naughty is just as wicked as doing something naughty, but English law has never recognised a pure thought crime.
Female genital mutilation is contrary to section 18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is a crime of specific intent. It is necessary to prove that the defendant intended to do the act, but his religious motive is no defence.
Jomo Kenyatta regarded female genital mutilation as a precious symbol of African moral and racial superiority over Europeans. And it seems that Germaine Greer and others on the left who support female genital mutilation agree with this analysis. It is something that people with dark skins do for religious and cultural reasons, so it is not for secularists with white skins to criticise it. A similar rationale leads Greer and her fellow relativists to uphold the right of Moslems to murder Salman Rushdie.
16th January 2008 at 1:30 pm
I think we’re running the risk of disagreeing for the sake of it here - I suspect that we don’t disagree nearly as much as it appears. Having said that…
“No Rob, we should educate them, or disagree with them if they make that point in public.”
Well, yes. But they still have a right to disagree back. I think there’s a big difference between saying “you cannot commit the following acts” and saying “you cannot hold the following beliefs”. I think that Laurence comes too close to the latter for my liking, though I have no problem with the former. You might say that I’m splitting hairs, and perhaps I am, but I do think that these distinctions matter (if not in this case then in others).
“Of course, but criticising daft views, which is what Laurence is arguing for in respect of religion to give it equal treatment other forms of opinion, is different to punishing someone for holding a daft view and then acting on it. I think that’s pretty clear isn’t it?”
Yes, and we entirely agree on that. But where I differ with Laurence is in the identification of religion as the main problem. People do bad things for any number of reasons, and focussing on religion is misguided. We might end up lambasting ‘religion’, an abstract concept, instead of engaging with the very real issues that cause people to behave in certain ways. Religion is not the main cause of bad behaviour, and it’s possible for people to be religious and also model citizens. It’s not religion per se that is the problem.
“But it would be rather better if there had been education in advance to make it clear the Bible has got this wrong in the view of our secular society in the hope of prevention.”
But there already is! I mean, there are laws against assault and hate crimes, and plenty of initiatives both inside and outside of official education to combat hate crimes. Statistically, how many crimes in this country are caused by people having read the Bible? Enough to make this a major focus of policy?
If you can assure me that you’re not interested in going after people for ‘thought crimes’ then I’ll happily agree with you. If you’re happy to accept people having all manner of weird and objectionable views so long as they are not harming anyone then I’ll happily agree with you. I’m just very wary of saying that religious people are a dangerous influence in society; it’s something I just can’t accept and I’m quite surprised that it’s a view which has such wide currency. I don’t expect people to hold views I find acceptable, I just want them to behave acceptably.
16th January 2008 at 2:00 pm
Being virulently anti-religious will definitely lose us votes. That is all.