As millions of Britons make their annual visit to church and we learn that our new leader, Nick Clegg, “Doesn’t do God” (so to speak), is it time for the Liberal Democrats to rethink their relationship with faith communities?
Liberalism and religion have not always been happy bedfellows. However, even as Richard Dawkins tops the best-seller lists, and we unwrap our gifted George Bush ‘countdown calendars’ this Christmas, I believe we should re-think and embrace our churches, mosques and temples as allies in the liberal cause, albeit for rather different reasons than we usually do. Before I suggest three reasons for this, let’s consider what use our campaigning makes of faith communities at the moment. It’s not always very liberal…
1. ‘Conservative Wall Paper’. I’ve lost count of the number of Focus shots or VIP visits I have witnessed where the stained glass, Spire or Minaret are used to send the right reassuring message to ‘small-c’ conservative voters.
2. Block Voting. Particularly in inner-city areas like my own, a quick chat with the local clergy or committee of elders is seen (on both sides) as a short-cut to engaging with many ethnic communities. The idea that communities can be bought and sold like this (particularly with high postal voting) may be realistic on occasions, but it’s deeply illiberal.
3. ‘A whipping horse’. Fundamentalists are an aggressive secularist’s best friend, as Marilyn might have sang. Who needs to write like Richard Dawkins when Jerry Falawell and Osama Bin Laden will do your polemics for you? However, liberalism should be able to assert its principles in positives terms, not use convenient sock puppets to stigmatise all believers as nutters.
Even if you don’t buy my critique of existing practice, here are a few suggestions for what we might learn as liberals from our brethren.
1. Mutualism in action. Places of Worship are a colossal network of mutually owned buildings providing social functions and shared space. Often without a penny of tax payers’ money or any state ownership they are substantial section of the nation’s ‘Public Square’. Nearly all of them are managed by committees of local people, and most are democratically elected.
2. Devolved public services. You will struggle to find a place of worship without some sort of attached support or social programme. These are nearly always locally delivered, locally designed, and rooted in an analysis of local need patching glaring gaps in state provision. With local and voluntary funding they can innovate, and (if you’ll forgive the pun) play a prophetic role in where state provision gets it wrong.
3. Locality. Before you hop off to deliver that generic health survey or downloaded Post Office petition ask yourself this: is there another set of institutions in Britain as well rooted in its localities? I don’t just mean the Anglican parish tradition – but, say, a Masjid’s status as a focus for geographical community. Thriving localities need institutions that are small enough to relate to a particular neighbourhood and crucially are recognisable and authentic. The Liberal Democrats rightly practice community politics through concern for the viability of the local butcher, baker and candlestick-maker, but can ignore the most literally parochial of institutions. Finally, let’s not forget that in many inner-city or rural areas the clergy are the only professionals that actually live there or are present after 5pm, Monday to Friday.
I know many will tell me to get my coat and sod off to George Bush’s ‘Office of Faith-Based Initiatives’. I just ask sceptics to think of one question this Christmas. Regardless of your personal religious beliefs can you not think of one or maybe a hundred state-run services that would be improved by systematic mutual ownership, real devolution and radical locality?
* David Morton is the Lib Dem Councillor for Headingley on Leeds City Council, the prospective Parliamentary candidate for Pudsey, and blogs at The Republic of Hyde Park.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Opinion: Land Value Tax - an old idea with lots of modern supporters
Which of the five Lib Dem reshuffle options will Nick Clegg pick?
In praise of Councillor Neil Hughes - 56 Up
Lynne Featherstone's honeycomb surprise
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
Opinion: The future of the CAP – specific proposals by Liberal Democrats
Willie Rennie’s first year as Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader
John Leech MP writes… It is not just the Leader’s job to sell the Pupil Premium
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
Tomorrow at Wighton ...
Lord Ashdown: Lords reform. Smackdown
Cornish Lib Dem MPs unite against regional pay
Differences and Similarities between EU and the UK
Weekly list of planning applications for the week ending 4 May 12
The LDV Friday Five: 18 May 2012
Up The Spiral Staircase...
Transport for London are still in denial over Oyster overcharging
Stuart Mitchell
Richard Dean
jason
Helen Tedcastle
Adam Smith Fan
39 Comments
David, a thoughtful article.
One of my favourite ‘successes’ in my council career to date was encouraging my council to give a substantial start-up grant to our local “Active Christian Trust” for youth work. And I’d hate anyone to describe any of my Christian friends – councillors and non-councillors – as ‘nutters’
But I supported the Active Christian Trust because of the good youth work they were and are doing, not because of any religious belief of mine or theirs.
I’m not sure what exactly what re-thinking you want us to do…
What happens when you “embrace our churches, mosques and temples as allies in the liberal cause” and discover that you differ radically in your views on such issues as freedom of religion, science teaching, gays, contraception, abortion or womens rights ? Bending over backward out of sympathy with them could lead us into betraying our own liberal principles out of sycophancy towards them.
Local state-run services? We already have a very large number of ‘faith’ schools in the UK – and they are mostly very good schools. But I am personally against any further expansion of ‘faith’ schools . For one thing, I don’t think it is very liberal to assume that a five year old will automatically follow the beliefs of its parents and, if anything, schools should be teach ‘reason’ not ‘faith’.
Oddly enough , about sixty years ago my grandfather didn’t like the Liberals because he thought they were all ‘Chapelites”. So maybe we used to “Do God” more than we do now.
I think that we should work with any individuals who share our views. But as a party we shouldn’t do ‘God’ any more than we do “Atheism”. And we shouldn’t let bodies governed by religious beliefs control important local services.
Yes yes, that’s great. But do we think that the claims of religion are true? It really matters.
An interesting and thoughtful piece David.
I think we need to differentiate between those who we want to draw into the liberal “tent” and those who we want to ally with to further particular liberal causes. If we want people to join our party our first consideration must surely be that they share our values as opposed to boost our numbers. I fear sometimes we are careless about this and this does no one any favours. If it comes to building alliances with those who share our concerns about tackling poverty, or as you point out Chris, providing youth facilities, campaigning against attacks on our civil liberties, then that is a different matter. Political parties and religious institutions do not have exclusivity when it comes to wanting to be part of shaping a better society, however they may define that.
This is a particular concern for me, we need to be clear about values, what we share and what we don’t. And I agree with Chris, if we think an attitude or behaviour is illiberal we must say so, no more trying to be all things to all people. So, yes, let’s listen and learn, recognise what is good and challenge what is bad.
So Laurence, yes of course it really matters whether we think the claims of religion are true. Now I know you and I don’t agree on this point, so clearly I will have a different perspective. However, I don’t believe the claims of the efficacy of the Tory or Labour ideologies are true, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t work with them on particular issues where we agree. Frankly, even if we all agreed all religious belief was total nonsense, we wouldn’t change the reality of the millions of people who do believe and whose lives are enriched by their belief. And also, however clever we are – even the great Mr Dawkins himself – no atheist can ever be completely and absolutely sure they are right.
I do not agree that it matters whether the claims of religion “is true”. Most religions are old philosophies, the original scriptures no longer exist, the translations of what does exist are often in dispute. In the case of the Bible, I understand that some of the content is taken from other religions.
Many people believe in a religion for subjective rather than objective reasons. Rationality or “proof” is really beside the point. Religion is not science and should not claim to be.
I just noticed a link on this website to God doing Liberalism!
See http://www.affirming-liberalism.org.uk/
Religion is not science and should not claim to be.
If religions are not making claims concerning reality, then what exactly is the point of it all? In fact, religions do make numerous existential claims: namely that there exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, miracles, prayer, even divine insemination at this time of the year. Seen in this light, religion stands not so much in opposition to science. Rather religion, in its pure form, is science. It also happens to be a science which has been perfectly falsified.
It really does matter whether the claims of religion are true. For it makes all the difference between religions being a light in a dark world, or the burden upon humanity which they appear more closely to resemble.
I don’t believe the claims of the efficacy of the Tory or Labour ideologies are true, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t work with them on particular issues where we agree.
That is an interesting analogy, Linda, which is not wholly without merit. I believe that Marxist ideology is false. There are good a priori reasons for believing that Marxism is a bad idea – and neither has it worked out well in practice. But politics these days is less and less ideological, which in my view can only be a good thing. So I would not be prepared to dismiss either Tory or Labour. Rather I see politics as a spectrum.
Suppose we define a left-right spectrum in terms of the amount of tax levied as a percentage of GDP. Clearly this is simplistic and one dimensional. But the point is that there is no absolute right or wrong about where we should position the slider on this spectrum. I would certainly like to see us working towards a low tax economy, but equally I have no desire to force the pace of change as some Conservatives might. The “correct” amount of tax to levy will rightly vary from place to place and from time to time.
But God isn’t a spectrum. He either exists or not. He either matters or not. Of course people of good will have tried to create a religious spectrum on which they may position themselves as “moderates” – but this is an all too human construction which makes scant theological sense, never mind any other variety. So I’m afraid that this is one question where we really are all going to have to get off the fence.
Even if we all agreed all religious belief was total nonsense, we wouldn’t change the reality of the millions of people who do believe and whose lives are enriched by their belief.
Don’t forget to mention all the people whose lives are destroyed by religion.
No atheist can ever be completely and absolutely sure they are right.
That is a hook, Linda, off which I am not prepared to let you! I don’t believe in God any more than you believe in Father Christmas. Philosophically, these two positions are identical. Of course culturally there is a huge difference, but that is all religion amounts to – cultural baggage. You are just as much the atheist as I am.
Excellent article highlighting the practical side of religion. I was all set to excoriate you for, er, something or other but I found myself agreeing with everything you said. This ‘god-botherer’ approves of your logical approach wholeheartedly, made without having to go into the mumbo jumbo of who believes what, where and why they want to string up the other lot for something which happened 1000 or so years ago.
I realise that Laurence can’t see the word ‘religion’ without having to declare the non-existence of God (a position that I share), but I don’t think that in this instance it is relevant to the discussion of a thoughtful and important article. Sure, massive harm has been and is being done by religion but the converse is true too: my parents-in-law spent the afternoon of Christmas Day helping at a Salvation Army tea. I was on my own, I could have helped too, but they have some sort of imperative – fear for their immortal soul, the example of Jesus – and I don’t. Cynicism about their motives is not appropriate in this context: a world populated by atheists like me might be a great deal more atomised and uncaring than the one we’ve got.
Something went really wrong and my comment appears to have dropped off, or was it ever there? I had argued my case with Laurence, did it appear and then disappear as if by magic, or some supernatural power? I had made some incredibly salient points and I can’t now think for the life of me what they were! Did I get binned for mentioning the G word I wonder?
If my brain re-engages in a bit I will try again.
I replied at 7 to your comment at 3 Linda. Was there something else?
I realise that Laurence can’t see the word ‘religion’ without having to declare the non-existence of God (a position that I share), but I don’t think that in this instance it is relevant to the discussion of a thoughtful and important article.
This may be a thoughtful article, but I’m afraid I’ve heard it all before Tony. This one is basically the “religions do lots of useful charity work” argument. But I take it to be axiomatic that the sum total of human happiness cannot be improved in the smallest degree by the process of believing in something which is not true. The “benefits” of religion come at a cost which must be discharged elsewhere. In this sense religion is a profoundly conservative enterprise. I have written about this at length here. Give me a poke if you can’t see it.
Yes Laurence
I replied to 7, but obviously it didn’t arrive. It went something like this……
(me never one to miss the opportunity to be “hooked”!)
Firstly, what makes you think I don’t believe in Father Christmas (?!) infact I am just in the middle of a fairystory in your honour
Secondly, yes of course you are right, people’s lives are destroyed by religion, but that was not the point I was trying to make at the time. I am sure you would agree that there are also many people whose lives have been destroyed by the interpretation of other ideologies, be that Marxism, Fascism, Nationalism…… To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if God exists he is responsible for how people express their belief in him. Hmmmm, interesting proposition. A bit like Nick Clegg being held accountable for my mild criticism of Mr H.
But, of course Laurence, you can’t be entirely sure you are right, any more than I can. You deify Science, but science at best pontificates about the past, observes the present and speculates about the future. Now I am no scientist, so I may be in the process of hoisting myself on my own petard…however presumably there was a time when even the greatest scientists knew nothing about the existence of radiowaves? How many other dimensions/spectrums do we know nothing about? And we make assumptions that the speed of light has been constant throughout the history of the universe, can we be sure? And Einstein’s third law of thermodynamics, where does that come in?
So Laurence, yes, let’s get of the fence, frankly I don’t think I have ever been accused of sitting on the fence in me life! It matters if God exists, it makes a difference. But, I am hardly going to convince you he exists any more than you are going to convince me he doesn’t. So where does that leave us? Do we chuck out anyone in the party who believes? Do we refuse to work with anyone in the community who believes? Do we think that as a party we should have a view? Or do we accept that as human beings religious belief is in our DNA. OK, for some that belief and faith is in something outside of God, be that a political or scientific ideology, but it is there. It informs our lives, our values our actions. And where those ideologies result in institutions, unscrupulous humans will exploit said institutions for their own ends.
I think we have to accept the reality that Richard Dawkins et al, even if they come up with their own irrefutable “evidence” that God is a delusion, are unlikely to make much of a difference to the faith communities that exist in our country. These people are our constituents, whether or not we believe as they believe, we are seeking to represent them. So, we have to recognise what is positive about their contribution to our society, but challenge anything that we see as wrong.
I look forward to round 2!
L
absolutely great comments. Linda dear soul you are a gem. I am not religious at all, heaven forbid. Would this make me a bad person? no-not really, my wife still loves me, warts an all. I would still fight for the right of others to worship any religion of their choice and support christian or other religions that promote community tolerence and social activity
Check out the truth here:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
I am sure you would agree that there are also many people whose lives have been destroyed by the interpretation of other ideologies, be that Marxism, Fascism, Nationalism.
No, I would not agree with that. I do not think it is the interpretation which is at fault. I think those ideologies are at fault in a fundamental way, and it’s the same with religion. But while we’re making this comparison, think on this: There are over 4 billion subscribers to various religions worldwide. How many intelligent adherents of Marxism or Fascism do you think we might be able to locate today? Do you think they would fit into a taxi? Those ideologies took a heavy toll, but ultimately they were falsified and thrown on the scrapheap of bad ideas. Anyone who claims that Marxism is greatest thing ever, but that there has been a failure of interpretation, is no longer taken seriously. And yet after 2,000 years of religious carnage, we are still supposed to accept the idea that religion would be wonderful if only everybody “did it right.” Give me a break.
To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if God exists he is responsible for how people express their belief in him.
Well ultimately, God is responsible for everything. The problem of evil has never been solved, notwithstanding the endless incoherent attempts of the “theologians.”
But, of course Laurence, you can’t be entirely sure you are right, any more than I can.
Not only am I not sure I’m right, I’m actually sure that I must be wrong about many things! The difference is one of methodology. It’s about putting ideas up for test and falsification, as opposed to saying “here’s the divine unalterable revelation – end of story.”
You deify science . . .
No, I don’t deify anything.
. . . but science at best pontificates about the past, observes the present and speculates about the future.
Come now Linda. What about this internet thingy we’re using? You must admit it’s not bad. Without it, we would never have known each other! What about all the advances of modern medicine which have enabled us to patch up God’s lousy design. Real life-changing cures that make the “miracles” of Jesus look frankly silly. And to think that we’ve only just begun.
Presumably there was a time when even the greatest scientists knew nothing about the existence of radio waves?
Yes, but God knew. So why didn’t he tells us? Why didn’t Jesus give us a cure for cancer? The truth is that Jesus didn’t even know what cancer is. So much for being omniscient.
And Einstein’s third law of thermodynamics, where does that come in?
Is that the one that says that the universe will ultimately reach a constant temperature, thereby becoming a lifeless desert? Bummer. Let’s invent a fairytale paradise to keep our spirits up!
if God exists, it makes a difference. But, I am hardly going to convince you he exists any more than you are going to convince me he doesn’t.
Well obviously I can’t prove a negative, but why can’t you prove the positive? Why can’t you demonstrate the difference God makes, to everyone’s satisfaction? Those radio waves are a bit mysterious too. They’re not even made of matter and can pass through walls. But I can certainly show that they make a difference. A clear, predictable, repeatable difference. Come on, show us the evidence. Only make it good. I don’t want to see any tatty old scrolls.
Do we chuck out anyone in the party who believes? Do we refuse to work with anyone in the community who believes?
No, but some of us are going to give them a really hard time!
Do we think that as a party we should have a view?
Yes, we should be secular. It’s the only rational way to govern a population of many beliefs and none. Politics is an entirely humanistic endeavour. It is concerned only with this life, not the next.
Or do we accept that as human beings religious belief is in our DNA?
Well, if it’s just a DNA thing, then it has an entirely natural explanation. So no need for God.
We have to recognise what is positive about their contribution to our society, but challenge anything that we see as wrong.
OK, well suppose you work on the former, while I concentrate of the latter?
Ooooh! Lots of meat there Laurence, will return in the morning when I have given careful thought to your response!
L
Laurence I’m getting the distinct impression that you have got yourself muddled as it seems you’ve again fallen into the trap of mistaking conceptual tools as the ends in themselves – confusing the means for any meaning. Where is your vision? Raise you eyes.
Because belief starts where knowledge stops anybody who denounces any belief (rather than criticising it coherently) is claiming possession of absolute knowledge – does this make you God, Laurence? If so, then why do you argue that it was a figment of my imagination that I saw on QT in Cambridge recently arguing in favour of Her resilience? I would be able to take you more seriously if you didn’t choose to extrapolate from an unrepresentative selection of examples.
And even if we accept Dawkins position that religions are a cultural construct, then we must also accept each is subject to all political forces within its host community and can (thereby) be turned to help the disadvantaged (be they weak, poor, sick, sad, lonely, desperate or lame – perhaps Laurence’s ego won’t accept he may need help…), or we can swiftly move to dismiss all abstract ideas as delusions – and therefore also the potential benefit we may derive from having them.
In the real world all ideas coexist freely, competing to coallesce better in our consciences. Secularism doesn’t deny questions of or about reality, but it is the next best thing to those who prefer to avoid the dogmatic conclusions of the fallible which is achieved by separating the demands of formal logic from casual everyday truths.
So, does it matter if the “claims of religion” are true? Well, only if you can be specific about what those claims are and agree with your reader on how you intend the claims to be interpreted. Otherwise I suggest the search for spiritual meaning and purpose should remain an intimate and personal quest, while the party should concentrate on more earthly and earthy matters.
Laurence, I’m getting the distinct impression that you have got yourself muddled.
No, I rarely get in a muddle.
Because belief starts where knowledge stops, anybody who denounces any belief is claiming possession of absolute knowledge.
That which may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.
I would be able to take you more seriously if you didn’t choose to extrapolate from an unrepresentative selection of examples.
So you don’t take me seriously. That’s fine. Do you take religion seriously?
[Religions] can be turned to help the disadvantaged be they weak, poor, sick, sad, lonely, desperate or lame.
Look, I’m really tired of this argument which is the equivalent of saying that Mussolini made the trains run on time.
. . . or we can swiftly move to dismiss all abstract ideas as delusions . . .
Religions do not claim to be in possession of a few abstract ideas. They claim to be in possession of a divine revelation.
So, does it matter if the “claims of religion” are true? Well, only if you can be specific about what those claims are and agree with your reader on how you intend the claims to be interpreted.
Well that’s true. There’s such a bewildering variety to choose from. I do wish God would get the story straight.
The search for spiritual meaning and purpose should remain an intimate and personal quest.
I think I might have agreed with that a few years ago. Then this happened.
It is not for the Liberal Democrats to determine whether or not God (however defined) exists. We are not the Party of Labour of Albania!
I have no objection in principle to Liberal Democrats working with “faith” groups, so long as those groups are providing services that Liberal Democrats consider to be in the public interest, and so long as those services are provided on a non-sectarian basis.
So I oppose the state funding of segregated “faith” schools, but I would support Liberal Democrat collaboration with “faith” groups that give aid to the poor and vulnerable regardless of their religious affiliation.
LB is using this forum to promote atheism and the materialist theory of mind, which is not – as I see it – what LDV exists to do.
Perhaps LB would be better off in a party more atuned to his opinions (many of which are illiberal). Maybe the Party of Labour of Albania or its modern equivalent.
The electorate takes in people of all belief systems and none, so we have to be inclusive of all, even Moonies and Scientologists.
Please, keep religion AND atheism out of politics!
This feels a bit like a circular argument but, here goes. Firstly on Science, I am not dismissing science or the wonderful (and terrible)advances sciencs has afforded us. The internet is after all an instrument for good and bad. To use your logic Laurence, because science has bad as well as good bits (er, nuclear weapons for example?) do we reject science altogether? No, my point is that however omniscient science appears to be it is not!
Why didn’t God tell us? Maybe he did, we just weren’t listening coz we didn’t believe in him?!
As far as evidence, I guess the problem is that the evidence is no good to you because you have already found an explanation for everything anyone would put forward as evidence.
Having studied Albania as a student I think it was a very good example of a totally godless state, interestingly enough regarded at Nirvana by my Marxist/Leninist friends at the time.
So Laurence, I don’t have any problem with the idea that our party is a secular party, heavens I wouldn’t want to be part of a religious party. However, some of our members will belong to religious institutions and it would be foolish to think that their faith did not influence their political beliefs.
To insert my two pence: religion is not like a political party. You can’t just say “we support what x relion says about why but not what it says about z” like you might say “we support Tory tax policy but but tory policy on education” (for random example) because (while the supporters of a political party may or may not agree with all of its policies, it’s a /requirement/ of religion that you adhere to all commandments. Thus, if you support religious causes in the form of youth initiatives or other such worthy things, you are also supporting them in persecuting gays, or demanding special privileges for their followers over non-followers, or teaching creationist toss in schools, because supporting a religious initiative is supporting religion.
I’m not against anyone believing whatever the hell they want to in the privacy of their own homes, but when it starts to afect me (my daughter has no choice but to go to a faith school for example) I start to get a bit annoyed. Any state endorsement of religion necessarily affects me, and that applies whether it is elevating one particular religion above others (CofE) or supporting lots of other religions too so they don’t look like they are being favouritist towards one religion or another.
(with apologies if some of this is a bit incoherent; I drank rather a lot last night)
“x reliigon says about y but not what it says about z”
even.
Note to self: proof read.
“You can’t just say “we support what x relion says about why but not what it says about z””
Loads of people (possibly all) I know who would class themselves as religious do just that. Eg all the Catholics who use contraception.
Absolutely, but they feel bad about it. They are made to and expected to feel bad about it, because they are disobeying one of God’s rules
LB is using this forum to promote atheism and the materialist theory of mind, which is not – as I see it – what LDV exists to do.
Hey, at least I don’t promote morphic resonance!
To use your logic Laurence, because science has bad as well as good bits (er, nuclear weapons for example?) do we reject science altogether?
No, because science is merely a reflection of reality. We can’t un-invent nuclear weapons and it would be meaningless to wish for that. Without nuclear energy, we wouldn’t be here at all, powered as we are by that monstrous nuclear fireball – the sun. If, at some time in the future, the Middle East goes up in a mushroom cloud, there would be no point in blaming the technology. But there would be every point in blaming religion, as we all know that religion would have been a major contributing factor to such a tragic scenario. We can’t reject reality, however much we might like to at times. But we can reject God because he/she/it is merely a product of our imagination. You could say that we need the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
The problem is that the evidence is no good to you because you have already found an explanation for everything anyone would put forward as evidence.
Not at all. Just give me a miracle. A good one. Grow back an amputated limb through the power of prayer. I’ll believe then. Plus we can shut down the NHS and save a packet.
It would be foolish to think that their faith did not influence their political beliefs.
But after Blair/Bush/Iraq, does anyone still think this is a good thing?
Sorry, I’m following this up a bit late. Laurence says, “I take it to be axiomatic that the sum total of human happiness cannot be improved in the smallest degree by believing something that is untrue. The benefits of religion come at a cost which must be discharged elsewhere”.
This is a statement which is rooted in belief, not evidence, nor can it possibly be proved to be true – just like a religious belief in fact. The point that the original article was making was that there are plenty or religious groups which are deeply embedded in our communities, are run democratically, and respond more sensitively and innovatively to needs within those communities than any other bodies, statutory or otherwise, is a good one to make. Liberals believe in a pluralist society and we should be embracing pluralism wherever it is to be found. Of course there are religious groups which have thoroughly illiberal views and it is likely to be a waste of time trying to communicate with them, but they are very much in the minority in this country. This is certainly not the same as suggesting that the government should be co-opting religious groups to assist in social service provision, something I believe we should oppose.
This is a statement which is rooted in belief, not evidence.
I think there is a wealth of evidence in fact, but I merely throw that idea out as a metaphysical hypothesis. I am quite happy for it to be falsified. But I really don’t see how, given that we are constrained by reality, any good can come from being in denial of reality.
Nor can it possibly be proved to be true – just like a religious belief in fact.
Oh good. That means everyone will be falling over themselves to “respect” my idea.
Well the discussion was livlier than I expected! I would certaibnly substantially re write my original comments in the light of this debate. however a few comments in response.
1. I’m not making any theological points and I see the truth or otherwise of any religions claims as being irrelavent to the points I was making.
2. My main point which i suspect i didn’t tease out sufficently is in Faith Groups we often have ultra localist, residents run non state actors often run a mutualist model. I suspect we often don’t think of them in thios way through.
3. I take it as given that many aspects of religion can be very conservative and absolutely any state funding they recieve has to be used in accordance with basic liberal principals.
The truth always matters.
“Yes yes, that’s great. But do we think that the claims of religion are true? It really matters.”
Just going back to point 2. This is a really wide and somewhat vague question. Which religion are we talking about – as they don’t all believe in one god. And what claims? The existence of a supreme being, the existence of Hell, ability to walk on water etc? And of course who is ‘we’ – as the LibDems as any major political party will not have a shared view on this matter. Religion and politics should be kept as far as part as is effectively possible.
The “we” is the “royal we” – a rhetorical device. I assumed Gaffa that “we” all know roughly what the claims of religion are. There exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, miracles, prayer, etc. He wishes us to obey him and love him at all times – not always easy. Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then we will be rewarded in Heaven. Otherwise . . . you know what will happen.
This pretty much covers the religions that are causing all the trouble, and broadly speaking, these claims have been debunked by science and philosophy. If I had to boil it down to just one bullet point, then I would say that it is the belief in an afterlife which is the real killer, because it utterly diminishes the intrinsic value of life on earth.
Yes – but as I say – what possible solution or common ground can you expect from any political party on the issue whether their is an afterlife or not. It’s an interesting debate but it doesn’t matter issomuch none of the big parties will declare themselves atheist. The best hope is that a political party finally seperates the State from the Church.
Well separation of church and state is the key political goal. But politicians don’t just legislate. They also seek to influence public opinion and lead debates on crucial issues. So, for instance, following the 9/11 attacks, it would have been perfectly reasonable for any politician to point out that Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad were directly fuelling this and other atrocities. Instead, what did we get? “Islam is a religion of peace.” The response could scarcely have been more dishonest.
Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity (i.e. it isn’t!) but nevertheless there are some people of faith who are peaceful despite certain passages in their texts. Therefore to make such a statement as you suggest would be supreme folly as it isolates the majority of moderate muslims (who were against the attacks) across the world. Turning it purely into a West vs Islam fight is simplistic and falls right into the trap what such islamic terrorists like Bin Laden want us to fall into.
To make such a statement as you suggest would be supreme folly as it isolates the majority of moderate Muslims (who were against the attacks) across the world.
How big a majority? The Pew Research Centre, in a poll entitled “What the World Thinks in 2002,” questioned Muslims as to whether they considered that suicide bombing was justified in defence of Islam. The results were as follows: Lebanon 73%, Ivory Coast 56%, Nigeria 47%, Bangladesh 44%, Jordan 43%, Pakistan 33%, Mali 32%, Ghana 30%, Uganda 29%, Senegal 28%, Indonesia 27%, Turkey 13%. I obtained these figures from the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Harris notes wryly that, “places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories were not included in the survey.”
Turning it purely into a West vs Islam fight is simplistic and falls right into the trap what such Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden want us to fall into.
Well of course we have fallen right into that trap with the Iraq debacle. What I am advocating is a Forces of Reason and Sanity vs ALL Religion fight! A good place to start would be at home with our own leading “moderate” Christian clerics.
So only two of the fourteen countries asked had a majority in favour of suicide bombing and according to the US News last year:
” a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that far fewer Muslims now regard suicide bombing as “justified” than five years ago. The sharpest drop was in Lebanon (where support for bombings fell to 34 percent from 74 percent in 2002), but the trend was also evident in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, and Indonesia. ”
No doubt there are lots of polls where American and British people give a worrying high opinion of things that we won’t agree on – but that doesn’t translate it taking take as face value as polls can be contradictory and occassionally biased.
In terms of combating 9/11 then we should focus on Al-Qaeda as well as the political situations involved around this like the Israel-Palestine conflict. You are right in that Iraq War was a stoopid trap for Messrs Bush and Blair to get into.
As for attacking faith with reason – then I’m all for that but I believe it should be kept seperate from 9/11 and Liberal Democrats unless it is on specific issues which are relevant. To use 9/11 to attack all Muslims (as opposed to Al-Qaeda) is like attacking all atheists over WWII because some claim Hitler was an atheist.
I would rather challenge someone on their individual beliefs and as laid out in their holy text rather than assume they are a potential terrorist who is going to do a crusade or jihad against me.
No doubt there are lots of polls where American and British people give a worrying high opinion of things that we won’t agree on.
No doubt.
As for attacking faith with reason – then I’m all for that but I believe it should be kept separate from 9/11.
Well I’m sorry, but I have no particular desire to be blown to bits.
To use 9/11 to attack all Muslims . . .
I am suggesting that we attack the vile religion of Islam in the context of an attack on all forms of unreason.
. . . is like attacking all atheists over WWII because some claim Hitler was an atheist.
Hitler was a Catholic who probably thought he was fulfilling the biblical prophecy of the final destruction of the Jews.
I would rather challenge someone on their individual beliefs and as laid out in their holy text . . .
Well that’s more or less where I started out – by questioning why so few were prepared to make the link between specific Islamic doctrines and 9/11. I can’t win here. Whenever I advance my abstract metaphysical arguments, I get, “Show us the evidence!” (which is always amusing if it comes from a religious believer). So I dig up some evidence, and I get, “Nah, nah, nah!”