For the party to be strong, we need to be a broad church, and not just in our political views. This is why I think the most important fringe meeting at the coming Spring Conference is the first joint fringe meeting of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum and the Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats. This is a chance for us to demonstrate that, even where we fundamentally disagree, Liberal Democrats can debate with mutual respect.
These last two weekends, I have seen concrete examples of the way Christians and atheists can work together: at the two most recent Regional Action Days, in Croydon, Carshalton and Wallington on February 25th, with nearly 60 activists, and in the Cambridge on March 3rd with around 70 activists. These events saw Christians and atheists working side by side for the Liberal Democrat values we share.
I am a Christian, but I get on extremely well with a number of atheists in the party. I am looking forward to the fringe meeting on Saturday 10th, 6.15-7.30pm: “When freedoms collide: Is freedom of religious expression under threat in the UK?”
The subject is more complex than it sounds. There are some religious people who believe that racist groups are now using abuse of religion to evade the law on incitement to racial hatred. But there are others who fear that their freedom to express their religious views may be threatened by others who find such views offensive. This is a dilemma for atheists too.
The Liberal party was partly founded by non-conformists who strongly believed in freedom of conscience, and this is reflected in the first paragraph of the constitution of the Liberal Democrats. We must always be a party that values vigorous debate, but, more than that, debate where we hold each other in high esteem, even as we disagree.
On television and radio, debates between the religious and atheists are often confrontational and bad-tempered, but within the party we don’t have to be the same.
I hope that, on Saturday, we will see Christians and atheists who find some common ground, but that they also feel free to publicly disagree, and then do so with mutual respect.
Just as this is important among those with passionately held views on the subject of religion, so it is when the disagreements are political.
The Liberal Democrats are going through an important transition, from a party that has been in opposition since before most of us were born, to a party that is grappling with some of the most difficult dilemmas in peace-time British history. We are showing extraordinary resilience in dealing with the strains of a coalition with our life-long foes, and that resilience will bring us opportunities in the future.
Those opportunities may one day see us challenge for a majority in the House of Commons, but only if we can continue to grow as a party, and draw in a wide enough alliance of members and supporters to be more than just the third party.
In order to build that alliance, we need to encourage those who disagree with the consensus to continue to express their views. We need to encourage constructive debate which doesn’t shy away from tackling difficult issues. And when we disagree, we must seek to do so with mutual respect.
* George Kendall is the acting chair of the Social Democrat Group. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Compare and contrast
Christmas With The Stars #dundeewestend
A stretch of the Market Harborough to Rugby line was electrified
Another day, another scandal at cash hit Liverpool Council
Helen Dudden
William Wallace
Russell
John Hall
Peter Martin
11 Comments
For various reasons I am unable to attend that meeting.
I think secular is an often misused term- it’s not the opposite of religious but the middle ground between religion and atheism.
I was brought up in a religious family, went to Sunday school and was confirmed. My family would often complain about how people twisted faith in order to find excuses for not caring or for one prejudice or another. “Call yourself a Christian?” my father would complain at the TV.
We need more sensible religious people speaking up against those who use their faith as a coatpeg to hang their prejudices. When people are noisily making hay of Airline workers breaking jewellery bans, or guesthouse owners being vile to gay guests we need more Christians saying “You know, I’m a practising Christian and these people don’t seem like Christians to me. My religious freedom is not limited by these idiots being told where to get off.”
You might not have chosen the title but I’d like to say that one can of course be religious and want a secular state.
@Adam “You might not have chosen the title but I’d like to say that one can of course be religious and want a secular state.”
You are quite right. But of course the word has two meanings. The other is “spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.”
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism
I think the conversation needs to extend to Muslims as well.
However I am delighted this meeting is taking place.
As far as the Lib Dems are concerned my biggest concern is with the evangelical athiests. There is an excellent article in the News Statesman on this topic by Bryan Appleyard which I think everyone should read; http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins
George,
as with secularism you always get further by concentrating on the tangible aspects… so ‘freedom of conscience’ is something that could be better emphasised, preferably by contrasting it with the ‘freedom from conscience’ that recent cynical hyper-capitalism has inculcated across society.
Atheism isn’t an excuse for oversleeping on Sundays!
Thanks for the comments, guys.
@Geoffrey Payne “I think the conversation needs to extend to Muslims as well.”
I hope it does. And to agnostics, hindus, sikhs, jews, and every other strand of religious opinion. As far as I know, the only limits on attendance is getting into the conference secure zone…
@Rankersbo
I agree that Christians who disagree with Airline workers breaking jewellery bans should feel free to say what they think. I hope Christians who are worried about those restrictions will also feel free to say what they think. But I hope they can disagree with mutual respect.
I want the party to be a broad enough church to be able to represent at least a third of the country, because I want us to aspire to be the majority government.
But for that to happen, we will all need to accept people in the party who take positions we strongly disagree with.
There’s been some talk of definitions, and what “secular” actually means. That’s an important point, because the meanings of “humanism” and “secularism”, like “marriage”, have evolved and had very different meanings within different communities over the centuries.
As a humanist, I want to recognise and celebrate what is best in people, regardless of their religious belief or lack of it – and if their religious beliefs lead them to make the world a better place (as is often the case), so much the better.
As a secularist, I want to see people of all faiths and none treated in the same way by the state, without special privilege or discrimination; there are many, many people of faith who are also secularists in the modern sense.
That’s why Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats’ constitution now explicitly welcomes new members “regardless of their religious belief”, and why we have worked with Liberal Democrat Christian Forum to arrange Saturday’s joint meeting.
Toby Keynes, Chair, Humanist & Secularist Liberal Democrats
I quote this from the New Statesman article Geoffrey Payne references:
Halfway through, Dawkins asked: “Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?
My answer to this is “YES”, though I would add to this “evangelical Christianity” (that is a little unfair, I mean specifically the right-wing sort which currently is voting for Santorum in the USA – so I also include Santorum’s sort of Catholicism in it) and precede “Islam” by “Salafist”.
That is, there is a certain sort on the “Humanist” side, Dawkins being an example, who seem to delight in painting all religion as if only the most obnoxious form was valid, and in fact pour particular scorn on other sorts for not following the obnoxious. I have myself seen the consequence of that – it really is squeezing out the middle by pushing a whole section of it, those who enjoy their religion and are hurt by the humanist attacks on it, towards greater sympathy with and support for the most obnoxious forms.
Load of good sense here, but particularly Matthew’s comment about militant atheists who characterise religion in an extremely literal-minded way (even when the holy book passage is obviously poetic or figurative) and then attack liberal believers for not believing what they’re supposed to! I also understand the annoyance of atheists who feel religious people are implying that you can’t have morals without God.
This is so often a dialogue of the blind, with even well-meaning statements being taken as an attack, that George’s meeting is particularly welcome. Well done.
@Simon Banks “This is so often a dialogue of the blind, with even well-meaning statements being taken as an attack, that George’s meeting is particularly welcome. ”
Thanks. But I can’t take any credit for the meeting. That should go to the executives of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum and the Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats. A long back, I was Chair of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. These days, I’m just an ordinary member. But a member who is very impressed at their organising of this meeting, and wanted to promote it to a wider audience through this article.
@Matthew Huntbach “I would add to this “evangelical Christianity” (that is a little unfair…”
Thanks for that, Matthew. That’s a really important point. The term evangelical Christianity is widely misunderstood outside the church.
For many, it doesn’t mean rightwing at all. For example, Jim Wallis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis is so radical, that he believed that paying taxes implicated him in military activities he didn’t approve of. His solution? To pay himself so little that he was below the tax threshold.
There’s a couple of quotes from him on the Wikipedia site that might be of interest:
“Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation.” Regarding same-sex marriage, Wallis has made the following remarks: “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral. I have never done a blessing for a same-sex couple. I’ve never been asked to do one. I’m not sure that I would. I want churches that disagree on this to have a biblical, theological conversation and to live with their differences and not spend 90 percent of their denominational time arguing about this issue when 30,000 children are dying every single day because of poverty and disease.””
So , a question for Liberal Democrats. It’s not clear from the above quote what he would think of Lynne Featherstone’s legislation. But some in the party will be unhappy with his reluctance to bless same sex marriages. But, he isn’t anti-gay either. If he were British, would you welcome him as a Lib Dem?
If Jim Wallis is reluctant to conduct blessings for same-sex couples, that his privilege; after all, it’s his blessing to give, or not, in accordance with his beliefs. If he doesn’t recognise a same-sex marriage as having any religious status, that too is his privilege. But if another religious community, such as the Quakers (who read the same bible as him) come to a different conclusion, and wish to recognise and solemnise the marriages of same-sex couples, then that’s their privilege too. That’s what freedom of religion is about.
On the other hand, marriage is also, and quite separately, conducted or recognised by the state as a civic institution, and the state, too, is entitled to conduct and recognise marriages according to its lights.
That’s what democracy is about. Religious institutions do not have a veto on civic marriages, any more than the state has a veto on religious marriages. In practice, the state recognises the marriages conducted by most religious institutions and vice versa, but that doesn’t have to be the case.
The current debate reflects this: if the UK were still a fully theocratic state, the Church of England would indeed have a veto on same-sex marriage; but we live in a democracy, thank goodness, so it has to argue its case along with the rest of us.