The exquisite arrogance and ignorance of our religious leaders was once again on full display last week in the form of His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, Keith O’Brien.
In a deeply political intervention, which Lynne Featherstone described succinctly as “diabolical,” the Cardinal made an outspoken attack on what he termed the “evil trade” and “unspeakable crime” of abortion. “In Scotland we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day,” he said, later likening this to “two Dunblane massacres a day.”
The Cardinal is no stranger to political controversy incidentally. Six months prior to the Scottish parliamentary elections, he stated that he would be happy to see an independent Scotland, to the delight of the SNP. In 2005, he caused consternation by suggesting that proposed gay adoption legislation would place children “in peril,” prompting Peter Tatchell to call him “a very sad, sick man.” The previous year, he spoke out against sex education proposals for Scottish schools. Getting a little carried away, he declared that the situation would be tantamount to “state sponsored sexual abuse of minors,” apparently without so much as a trace of irony.
But on this occasion, the Cardinal went much further than simply sharing his ill-informed opinions with the rest of us. His sermon included a veiled threat of excommunication for Westminster and Holyrood elected representatives who adopt a liberal stance on abortion. The Cardinal’s sidekick, Simon Dames, spelled out the message more bluntly: “If you claim to be Catholic, when it comes to the abortion issue, do not promote it, do not support it, and if you do then we’re talking about refusing the Eucharist.” By what authority does His Eminence believe that he may subvert the democratic process in this manner?
Who elected Keith O’Brien? To the best of my knowledge, he does not represent the Scottish people in any shape or form. Doubtless he will consider himself to represent Scotland’s 750,000 Catholics in some way, though in truth I cannot recall the result of any ballot that led to his elevation. In fact so far as I can see, the good Cardinal really only represents one person (or is it three?) – God, a somewhat elusive character who rarely puts in a public appearance, and indeed whose very existence is increasingly being called into question. Why did Alex Salmond even agree to meet him last week?
Of course none of us should be complacent about abortion figures which in Scotland last year reached 13,081 – a number which does indeed sound too high for comfort. But our consequent response should be firmly grounded in reason coupled with modern scientific and ethical insights, not dubious interpretations of ancient scriptures. Rather than shed any light on the matter, the religious perspective routinely obscures the argument and compromises the debate. So in the unlikely event that the Cardinal actually had something useful to say about abortion or sexual health in general, who would listen to him anyway?
I think that Liberal Democrats are missing a trick here. Under new Labour and our deeply religious outgoing Prime Minister, we have seen faith encroach ever further into public life; while at the other end of the scale, the Church of England has not unfairly been characterised as the Conservative party at prayer. I believe that the need has never been greater for an explicitly secular political party in Britain. Secularism does not mean bashing religion (though I am not above indulging in that particular pastime), but it does entail a complete separation of church and state. We should be seeking to drive the influence of religion out of the legislature, our schools, and the public square in general.
In my view, a radical secular platform could prove highly attractive to believers and non-believers alike at the next election; and the Liberal Democrats are perfectly placed from a political, philosophical, and historical perspective, to occupy this position in the electoral landscape. The country is ready for it; the time is right. Let us seize the opportunity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Choras at the Wighton
Could this be the reason I have a strong interest in Edwardian Liberalism? This is me in a sailor suit
Councillor joins Lib Dems in Suffolk
Encounters
The Time I Met Paul O'Grady and Lily Savage at the Same Time
My tweets
UK Government to reintroduce Victorian prison hulks?
Fiona
Nonconformistradical
Chris Moore
Chris Moore
69 Comments
On a slightly related issue, we have a local failing secondary school which is likely to be replaced with a “Faith” sponsored academy.
The Catholic diocese get to select 40% of pupils based on their religion and have said a further 40% will be allowed from the C of E.
The mathematicians among you will have worked out that this only leaves a 20% allocation for children from the local community.
Regardless of personal views on religion, it does highlight the worrying aspect of academies, i.e. whoever pays the piper- calls the tune.
Yes, well faith schools are probably the biggest thing we are doing wrong. And Academies are deeply troubling for a whole range of reasons. Count yourself lucky if they’re not teaching your kids creationism! Your example highlights another phenomenon, namely that the various religious groupings are more than happy to club together to further the broader cause of “faith.” But I’m not aware than Catholics and Anglicans have ever officially made up. Strictly speaking, Catholics think Anglicans are going to Hell. Anglicans probably don’t actually believe in Hell, but think that Catholics are profoundly mistaken. Yet they are quite happy to enter into these unholy alliances, even with non Christian faith groups, though they would surely revert to stabbing each other in the back if either side were ever to regain the ascendancy.
Rationalism and indeed secularism are respected strands within liberal thought. However so are diversity, individual expression and localism. You suggestion that the party trys to remove religion from the public square is highly illiberal. However bonkers the Archbishops pronouncement is ( and I agree that it is) he has much right to express it in public debate as Greenpeace, the WI or the Monster Raving Loonies. I’m also a little alarmed at the implications of your view for the numerious Faith based groups inter twinned with Civil Society. Where does this leave funding for Faith based youth work, social programmes etc?
The politicisation of the Catholic Church in Scotland calls in to question their charitable status which, as I understand it, is based on them staying out of politics.
Respond by simply stating the good moral and practical arguments for legal abortion, sex education, and gay adoption.
Win the debate, don’t exclude someone just because you disagree with them.
We are not going to win the nation’s confidence by talking about “driving out” anyone.
Talk about a country with an equal voice and equal place for everyone, whatever their views on religion. That’s partly why the party of Gladstone was first founded, to emanicpate Catholics, Jews, and the non-conformists.
Separate church and state but don’t separate of any British people from each other or from the Liberal Democrats with your choice of language.
You can achieve what you want by using terms like equality and tolerance and ‘live and let live’. Aggressive language sends the mainstream majority running away.
As often seems to happen, I started commenting on this article, but my comments, like Topsy, just growed, so I have put them here.
I agree with Jeremy’s criticisms.
But, also, it’s a bit of a nonesense to argue for the removal religion from politics when our whole political system is built on a value system that was shaped by our dominant religion.
Our creed should not be secularism (which is just Christianity without the hassle of going to Church on a Sunday) but liberalism – freedom, democracy, peace, tolerance and openness.
Jeremy Hargreaves post is worth reading.
All faith groups have not only the right but the obligation to speak up when they believe society is acting in a way that is immoral, whether it is about genocide in Nazi Germany or elsewhere, abortion here (or elsewhere), or about poverty, as in Latin America. Their supporters can then decide whether to agree, whether to leave the church, or whether to do what most Catholics clearly do about church teaching on contraception, and ignore it.
If they try to overthrow democratically elected government, that is different. But if they do not, then we may not like what they say, but should celebrate their right to say it.
Your suggestion that the party tries to remove religion from the public square is highly illiberal.
I don’t think so. I think that it is in fact religion which is fundamentally illiberal, not to mention socially divisive and downright false. Every political philosophy, when taken to an extreme, becomes incoherent; and liberalism is surely no exception. If as liberals, we tolerate that which is basically illiberal, then we run the risk of rapidly disappearing up our own fundament. The fact that today we have creationism being taught under the City Academy scheme, for instance, should tell us that a dangerous line was crossed quite some time ago. Not only are we teaching some of our children patent falsehoods, but we are undermining all the ideals of education to boot. I have no wish to be party to such a betrayal.
Win the debate, don’t exclude someone just because you disagree with them.
That’s a fine sentiment, but the trouble is that religion doesn’t play by the rules – the rules being evidence, reason, falsification. Religion tends not to go in for that sort of thing; it prefers divine revelation. Unfortunately there are a bewildering variety of such revelations on offer, all making incompatible and unfalsifiable claims. The plain fact of the matter is that there is just no debating with some people, and I strongly suspect that Cardinal Keith O’Brien lies firmly within that category.
We are not going to win the nation’s confidence by talking about “driving out” anyone.
Why can’t I talk (to pick one example) about “driving out” the Bishops from the House of Lords? That they sit in our legislature on account of their adherence to some ancient myth is an affront to both reason and democracy. However, I will gladly concede that just maybe I am not the best person to be arguing for a secular Britain, given the strength of my feeling. But who is making the secular argument in the political arena? I hardly ever hear it. For example, the word “secular” appears nowhere in the preamble. Why ever not? And what has Ming Campbell had to say about the Cardinal’s recent intervention? Shall we take a look? Not a sausage. Trust me, secularism is going to have to move up the political agenda, and Liberal Democrats should be leading the debate, not following it.
Agree with Jeremy, Tim & co that the Cardinal is probably doing what’s in his job description (if Cardinals have such a thing) – however stupid and despicable are his views, they are also the stupid and despicable views of his religion.
I want nothing to do with him or his religion, just as I want nothing to do with the BNP, but even in that (even uglier) case, we ought to defend their right to say it.
I think Laurence is on firmer ground when it comes to church schools and religious indoctrination. Sadly still seems political suicide to advocate withdrawal of funding from such schools, at least until the academic performance gap can be dealt with. But if we were starting afresh, I hope we’d accept that there should be no more place for schools with a religious agenda than ones with, say, a political one.
I think that the excommunication of people who support abortion is the sort of thing that churches should be doing more of.
If they kicked out everyone who didn’t obey the doctrines they dogmatically stick to, then it would soon be clear what a bunch insignificant little sects they really are.
It would also mean that a lot of people who were brought up Catholic or Church of England or Methodist or whatever would have to confront the creed and decide whether they accept every jot and tittle. Many more would decide that they do not.
I thought Church of England disestablishment was existing Liberal Democrat policy.It doesn’t necessarily mean greater secularisation.British society is already secularised to such a degree that many believe there is already a separation of Church and State.
There is no justification in the modern world for one Church or religion to enjoy official status over any other so let’s keep pressing for disestablishment!
Freedom of religious expression is an important strand in Liberal and Liberal Democrat history and values, whether that’s defending the rights of non-conformists and Catholics to become civil servants in the 19th century, or opposing restrictions on freedom to sepak out against religious views today.
Liberalism is not the same as secularism. Opposing theocracy is not the same as secularism. Liberalism is about tolerance including religious tolerance. Liberals should oppose oppression of Christians in China or Buddhists in Tibet as much as the oppression of gays in Russia or women in Saudi Arabia.
Laurence may believe that the need has never been greater for an explicitly secular political party in Britain. That party will not however be the Liberal Democrats.
While I’ve always voted LibDem, I’m going to vote Green until LibDem policy is to remove the power of selection from publicly funded faith schools. It’s just descrimination by another name.
I submitted a comment last night which has only just been freed up, so please see above if you’re interested! Here are some more responses:
I want nothing to do with him or his religion, just as I want nothing to do with the BNP.
But that’s just the point, isn’t it? We don’t have BNP schools, yet we have religious schools. Thousands of them.
I thought Church of England disestablishment was existing Liberal Democrat policy.
I think you’re right, but we don’t often hear much about it, do we? Time to stop hiding our light under a bushel I’d say, if you’ll excuse the religious metaphor.
Liberalism is about tolerance including religious tolerance.
Well that’s fine as far as it goes but, in my view, the whole scheme breaks down when we come to the question of education. People should certainly have the right to freely practise their religion, but do they have the right to inculcate it into the next generation? We all know that without indoctrination, religion would never last five minutes; nobody would ever discover the tenets of any religion from first principles. So the right to practise one’s religion seems to include by default the right to indoctrinate. But what of the rights of children to be free from that sort of thing? I think they are at least as important, if not more so.
What troubles me is how silent the Lib Dems are on the issue of faith schooling. A great debate is currently swirling around about Grammar schools versus Comprehensives versus Academies. But nobody is tackling the great big elephant in the room. It should be Liberal Democrats who are seriously questioning both the wisdom and the morality of organising our children’s education around competing ancient mythologies, with all the social divisiveness which that piece of lunacy necessarily entails.
I’m slightly with Richard G on this.
The Catholic Church regards abortion as an absolute moral wrong. It’s not unreasonable for their spiritual leader in this country to condemn people who disagree with that view.
If a religion won’t speak out against what it regards as a moral wrong then there’s not much point in it’s existence!
Isn’t the case though that what you object to is the Cardinal’s views. If not do you also condemn Archbiship Tutu, Rev King and Archbishop David Shepherd for their “deeply political interventions”?
I absolutely agree that religious indoctrination should be cast out of our schools. My parents were both brought up religiously, both later rejected it, and me and my siblings were brought up in a secular environment. To such as I, religion in all it’s forms seems preposterous.
Sadly, the party I used to hold much hope for went and gave Ming the leadership.
What a disaster!
This country is crying out for an alternative to dying New (sic) Labour and Cameron”s Eton creeps; the centre was there for the grasping after Kennedy’s fall, but Lib-Dem gave up, ran from the challenge and elected a pensioner.
For the sake of this sadly failing country, every liberal should surely push to eject Ming (god bless him) and install some balls!
Hywel: Basically what I object to is anyone wearing a silly hat and a robe, telling us what to do because that’s what it says in some stupid old book.
Harlan: I’m afraid I totally agree with all of your sentiments. Faith based schooling is utterly preposterous; as silly as if we were to organise our schools around the Greek and Roman gods. But I believe that the penny will drop eventually, even if we have to betray another generation before it happens. As for Sir Ming, his election always has and always will completely baffle me. It’s like having your nice old Grandad in charge. I think the plan should be to persuade Ming to be Speaker of the House when Gorbals steps down. Hopefully everyone will have a heart and cooperate with this face-saving manoeuvre, and then we can give ourselves a big collective slap prior to crowning someone who is really going to punch through the centre and score in what is almost an open goal.
Personally I live in hope that one day we’ll arrive at a situation where a person’s religion is taken as seriously as their choice of football team, and where the bleatings of bishops and others of their ilk have as much impact on public policy as the self-pitying whining of Jose Mourinho. (After all, what’s football if not an excuse to gather in one united brotherhood on a Sunday and sing songs together? Rather like church, but with rain and pies.)
Obviously the Arch-B is allowed to say his thing – so is the head of any minority pressure group. But we have to get past this assumption on the part of many that you can criticise anything about a person except their religion. Every time someone screeches about something being offensive to their religion I find myself growling “So? The law might protect you from being oppressed, laddie, but it doesn’t protect you from being offended”.
I’m just moving to a new constituency. The PPC at the last election, who I daresay will be reselected, is on record on a Christian website as saying they see politics as a new mission field. Well, I’m sorry, but I see politics as the place where human beings’ sovereignity over their own destiny rules supreme: an act of faith that says people can organise themselves in such a way as to make each others’ lives as good and effective and beneficial as possible. It seems to me that anyone strongly religious (whatever their faith) is implicitly calling that work worthless because they see a higher power trumping it. That, to me, is not a quality I want to see in our (prospective) elected representatives and why I can’t vote for that PPC under any circumstances (and very nearly jumped in to challenge them for the nomination).
In summary: religion good in small doses, as it empowers good people to do good things. Bad in large doses, as it is anti-democratic in its denial of human self-government.
What can possibly be wrong about the leader of a religious group laying down the rules by which people can be members of that religious group? Indeed, what he is calling for is a bit of honesty from our politicians – those who want to be seen as Catholics (and let’s not pretend that this isn’t politically important in some areas) must actually abide by the Catholic church’s teachings.
If our elected representatives find they cannot follow Catholic doctrine, then they should leave the Catholic church. If they have to be threatened with excommunication instead, then that’s a rather sad comment on the honesty of our politicians.
I have a feeling there are one too many Richard Dawkins fans on this post (including the author). Freedom of belief and expression is important but only for the individual. The problem with the Archbishop’s comments was that it was an institutional attack, not just his own views but actually saying an institution would punish its members if they disagreed on a political basis. For that i think the catholic church should have its charitable status taken away if it persists. However, secularism doesn’t mean you take god out of the political process all together it means you take religious institutions out of the process and that is a very different thing.
> secularism doesn’t mean you take god out of the political process all together
Let’s not get hung up on labels. I want to take God out of the political process: if that means I’m not a secularist I can live with that.
Andy: Totally agree. I really don’t want to vote for anyone who “does God” any more. Just think Blair and Bush. It’s like they’ve failed the honesty test at the very first hurdle. By the way, does anyone know where my MP, David Howarth, stands on the great questions of theology?
Radical: I admire Dawkins certainly, but I’m much more of a Sam Harris fan. But I agree, we can’t take God out of the political process. Because God doesn’t exist.
Cheltenham Robin:
“The Catholic diocese get to select 40% of pupils based on their religion and have said a further 40% will be allowed from the C of E.
The mathematicians among you will have worked out that this only leaves a 20% allocation for children from the local community.”
Errrr. No. The bloke in me with the Engineering Degree is wondering why you have decided that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are by definition not part of the local community.
Could you explain?
“Laurence: I really don’t want to vote for anyone who “does God” any more. Just think Blair and Bush.”
Sorry, Laurence – but that is an incredibly sweeping (and to my mind incredibly prejudiced) statement. To trash a huge chunk of the population on the basis of 2 examples is astonishing.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
I’m not getting into various other (mistaken) generalisations as this is a comments thread and it will get tedious.
Sorry, Laurence – but that is an incredibly sweeping (and to my mind incredibly prejudiced) statement. To trash a huge chunk of the population on the basis of 2 examples is astonishing.
Er, yes, it probably was a bit sweeping and prejudiced; that’s what happens when you get down to comment 23. But I wasn’t trashing a huge chunk of the population; merely questioning whether we really want religious imbeciles in our legislature. Somebody should really explain to me as a matter of urgency why it is that if you believe that Elvis is still alive then you belong in an asylum, whereas if you believe that Jesus is still alive then you belong in our halls of power.
The Blair and Bush combo have been an unmitigated disaster in my view, and I’m afraid that I strongly suspect that faith played a leading role. I don’t know whether or not Blair was actually obeying voices from God during the run up to Iraq which told him of the existence of WMD’s, but his actions certainly resembled those of someone on a “mission.” He displayed the religious mindset throughout, ignoring evidence in favour of following his inner conviction.
On faith schools, I guess the point is that Catholics and Anglicans are unlikely to make up 80% of a local region, in which case the scenario described would be discriminatory towards non-believers.
I’m always amazed at these religious freaks who think your moral duty to do X, as a committed member of a religion, means you also have a duty to coerce other people to do X. What an abominable moral principle. If other people are not “right with God”, it’s God’s business to coerce or punish them. Your duty as a Christian is not to sin, and the suggestion that you should be enforcing non-believers’ morality is not a million miles from blowing up infidels. I think someone in some book said it best: Judge not lest ye be judged
I think the Cardinal is right to point out to catholic politcians that their faith holds that abortion is murder.
The belief in the sanctity of every human life is a key part of catholic doctrine and those who do not agree with it should recognise that they are not fully part of their faith community.
Laurence
Cheers for your reply.
I’d broadly agree on Blair and Bush – particularly Blair. Bush is not imho as bad as he is painted over here.
I think we need to think more abotu “local community” and what that means. I think we should be looking at the town/area rather than 47 streets that make up the catchment of a school.
The latter is a recipe for destruction of diversity.
Matt
Oh I don’t know, Bush is pretty bad. He exercised the presidential veto to block federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a decision he made on purely scientific grounds I’m sure. Not. The only other time he used the veto was to prevent a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. So I fear that George Bush may ultimately go down in history as the President who twice deployed the veto, on both occasions so as to increase the sum total of human misery.
This thread has been more thought-provoking than any other. So thanks at least for that. And this reply has evolved during its writing over an extended period. Like Jeremy’s, it became just too long (even after editing) to be posted here.
My view in short: the cardinal leads a particular group in society. He has articulated one of the rules of his group. If his group believes that that rule is so fundamental to membership of that group, they have every right to exclude members who do not agree. The only wonder is that they have not done it sooner. The fact that their group would be smaller (and probably have less influence) probably explains why.
The cardinal can express his group’s view in vigorous terms if he likes. But he should not be surprised if my group (whether that is liberals or all politicians) are equally robust.
I suspect that most of us liberals see religion as one of many influences on our lives, not more important than every other – and for some completely unimportant. Outbursts like the cardinal’s might provoke more people to say that religion should not have a special place in public policy e.g. seats in the upper chamber of parliament.
Further thoughts, including why I think religion and political ideology are actually not that far apart, are here: http://chelmsford-stephenrobinson.blogspot.com/2007/06/religious-debate-one-of-many-influences.html
Ah, I was wondering when the Conservative MP Edward Leigh was going to give us the benefit of his considered opinion. Make sure you have a sick bag at the ready.
Interesting stuff. Religion today is like an inflamed appendix overdue an appendoctomy. But I think it’s important to recognise that like the appendix, it was once essential to our survival, even though now it’s completely unnecessary.
That’s not to say religion has no benefits. As you point out, “if you believe that Elvis is still alive then you belong in an asylum, whereas if you believe that Jesus is still alive then you belong in our halls of power.”
That’s the power of religion: networking. Sign up to a religion, and you join a million strong family that believes absolutely in its own righteousness. If God is going to grant your religious companions eternal life in paradise, where’s the harm in giving them a nice cushy job while they wait?
[Religion] was once essential to our survival.
It’s funny though how the other 1,249,999 species of animal seem to manage OK without it. You’re quite right of course, religion has enormous benefits for those on the inside track. But the rest of us have to pay the price.
“if you believe that Elvis is still alive then you belong in an asylum”
Odd view for a liberal to have though – punishing eccentric views by the asylum is a tad old fashioned 🙂
Mind you my religious upbringing was a church which accepted homosexuality when it was still illegal so I don’t subscribe to the view that all religion is restrictive and illiberal.
“You’re quite right of course, religion has enormous benefits for those on the inside track.”
I would suggest that Archbiships Tutu and Shepherd generated benefits for others not on the inside track.
I’m not a great fan of liberal religion; it doesn’t strike me as being terribly honest. Is God a liberal? Judging by some of his writings, I would say not. So in the case of homosexuality, I tend to think that if one is going to be religious, then one should really be prepared to apply the prescribed biblical punishment, which is death as it happens. Or better still, just give it up as a bad job.
Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal!
Jesus was a liberal? Hardly. Jesus said that not one “jot or tittle” of the old law should pass away. He believed literally in every word of the scriptures. Jesus was actually a creationist! He also believed that the end of the world was imminent. Considering that he was God, he didn’t seem to know much. Also, Jesus invented Hell. Nice one. No, I think that on the whole Jesus would feel much more at home in the company of Jerry Falwell. In fact they’re probably whooping it up right now!
Jesus was far more tolerant of people who disagreed with him than you seem to be Laurence.
I do like the idea by the way that he agreed with “literally every word of the scriptures”. Especially all those words that were written after he died. Has Jesus been in touch with you since to confirm that he agrees with all the words written after his death?
Where do you get this idea that Jesus was tolerant of people who disagreed with him? In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus says, “those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Of course, Jesus covered himself by putting this in the form of a “parable,” so you’re free to interpret the story to mean that we should all be nice to each other if you like. Alternatively, you can interpret it the way the Spanish Inquisition did.
“The simple believeth every word” – Proverbs 14:15
It’s what men do with their beliefs that harms people – to paraphrase those great moral philsophers “books don’t kill people, rappers do” 🙂
Hundreds of millions (billions?) of Christians have taken a different interpretation from yours.
I am impressed by your certainty that your view and only your view is right (along with your certainty about what Jesus thought of words written after his death – has he visited you to let you know?), though I do wonder how tolerant and liberal an outlook that really is?
If you do have an open mind, try looking at http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/
Member: No, Jesus hasn’t paid me a visit recently, because Jesus is dead. Rumours to the effect that he is in some sense still “with us” are grossly exaggerated in my view. Love the website by the way.
Hywel: I tend to think that books can kill, and the Bible and the Koran have killed millions. I don’t really understand why it is that we apply such a colossal double standard towards our sacred texts. Imagine, if you can, that the Lib Dem preamble contained an injunction to the effect that homosexuals should be put to death – unthinkable I know. So naturally this creates a bit of a media storm. Out comes Ming Campbell in defence: “Look, it only said that homosexuals should be killed, once. I really think you should balance this against all the other liberal things we have said about homosexuality. And besides, why do you have to read everything so literally? Can’t you see that the injunction could just as easily be interpreted as a command to love each other?” Patently ridiculous, and yet this is just the sort of grotesque duplicity which we routinely allow our religious leaders to get away with scot-free. The sacred scriptures, towards which we display such a fawning reverence, are simply barbaric and vile. Progress will be made when we cease to “respect” them.
How much progress did Albania make after Hoxha declared it to be the first and only atheist state in history?
Quite. That’s why we definitely don’t want an atheist state. We want a secular state.
“We” hey! Didn’t know you were one of the Royal Family Laurence!
But back to Jesus. You wrote before that he agreed with ever word in the scriptures. How can you be so sure he agreed with words that were written after his death?
Didn’t know you were one of the Royal Family Laurence!
Actually, I was born of a virgin.
How can you be so sure [Jesus] agreed with words that were written after his death?
Well I meant what we refer to as the Old Testament of course; Jesus just called it the scriptures. But it seems to me that if Jesus is God, and the Bible is the “word of God,” then Jesus really ought to agree with all of it. But maybe the members of the Trinity are not always of one accord.
You seem to be making a very large number of assumptions about what any Christian must think.
There is a huge range of flavours of Christianity – many (if not most) of which don’t require literal belief in the Old Testament, don’t require all parables to be taken literally (despite your claim that they must be) and on and on.
The one thing that strikes me from all your comments Laurence is that you appear to be happy to throw together a rather ramshackle arguments, based on lots of leaps, assumptions and assertions, and end up thinking millions of people are stupid and deluded without seeming to think that such a conculsion should require care or accuracy in your argument leading up to it.
There isn’t a liberal outlook is it, especially when you seem to love going out of your way to throw in passing insults at anyone who has religious views?
There is a huge range of flavours of Christianity.
I know – that’s the big joke. Which one does God subscribe to I wonder?
. . . rather ramshackle arguments, based on lots of leaps, assumptions and assertions . . .
Sounds a bit like religion.
You seem to love going out of your way to throw in passing insults at anyone who has religious views.
I’m sorry. I just can’t help it.
Jesus believed in the Hebrew Bible which isn’t quite the same as the Old Testament.After all he was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died a Jew.All the stuff about the Trinity came centuries after his death.
Well quite. This is what I don’t understand. Why aren’t “Christians” Jews?
“especially when you seem to love going out of your way to throw in passing insults at anyone who has religious views?”
That’s how it appears to me as well – I wouldn’t claim to be a Christian but there are a number of people I hugely respect who are. Jerry Fallwell and Ian Paisley are two who use their religion to divide whereas someone like Roger Roberts would appear to have his religious and policitical beliefs closely intertwined.
All religions at heart make exclusive claims concerning matters of the highest conceivable import, usually eternal salvation. Without such an exclusive claim, it’s very difficult for a religion to survive in the long run. So, for example, the nice liberal Jesus says, “no-one comes to the Father except through me.” This necessary exclusivity is what makes religion fundamentally divisive. The difference between Lord Roberts and Ian Paisley, is that Paisley is much more honest on this point.
I don’t claim to be a theological expert by any means, but your claim about Christians doesn’t stack up with my own experiences. I’ve come across Christians who don’t take such an exclusive view, but rather believe that there are many different ways to God.
I don’t know if Roger Roberts’s views fall into this group, though I think you’ll find plenty of non-Christians who respect him and wouldn’t agree with your casual dismissal of him as dishonest.
I can’t see why we need get so worried about all this. Jesus and all the other ‘gods’ have about as much relevance or factual basis as the tooth fairy.
Religion is dying out quite nicely in this country, so let’s leave it to whither on the vine. Creating a big debate about all this just plays into the hands of the theists.
PS – the latest Dawkins book is an excellent read, and he’s quite right in so many ways, but he does fall into the above trap.
There’s a far more respectable position than for which he gives credit that says “religion – what’s it got to do with me? I’m more interested in a nice cup of tea”.
Mark: I’m afraid things have gone a bit theological. Sorry about that! And you’re right, it’s best not to personalise the issue, especially if we don’t know the characters all that well. But I do think that religion is just a touch dishonest, not least because it promotes a fundamental double standard in our thinking and behaviour – between the domains of reason and faith, between the natural and the supernatural, between evidence based knowledge and divine revelation. Religion seems to comprise one long list of exceptions to the normal rules of reasonable discourse. That is why if politicians say that they’re religious, I’m a bit concerned. If they say that their faith exerts a strong influence upon their politics, then I’m very concerned.
Claire: I can’t really share your complacency – not while we currently enjoy creationism in the classroom. The lunatics have escaped the asylum and are running our schools, an astonishing state of affairs which seems to go virtually unchallenged in the political arena. And I haven’t even got started on the problem of Islam.
“Why aren’t “Christians” Jews?”
They don’t observe the Sabbath, keep kosher, and circumcise all males.
Lord Steel has written a thoughtful response to the Cardinal.
“theres no religion – you did that – it helps to keep your little leaders fat
Like faith n superstition stay – to help you pass the time away”
From Ian Hunter’s God (Take1)
“wouldn’t agree with your casual dismissal of him as dishonest.”
Frankly if an argument is based on questioning the honesty of Roger Roberts I would suggest the person is losing it (the argument at least) big style 🙂
No, I’m not saying that Lord Roberts is dishonest; in fact I’m only dimly aware of who he is. Sticking to generalities (as I should have done), what I am saying is that it is not honest, in my view, to embrace religion without acknowledging both the double standard which this injects into our public discourse, and the divisiveness which adherence to unfalsifiable competing belief systems necessarily entails. Fundamentally, the only way to decisively settle religious differences is with a fight. If you want evidence for this, then just open a newspaper.
Fascinating.
It’s entertaining to find a thread so broad in its misconceptions, and so unyielding in its prejudices.
The idea that you can put all religions in one bag and discuss them as a category is at best absurd.
Laurence Boyce describes religions as ‘unfalsifiable competing belief systems’. Some religions are unfalsifiable, while others have challenged opponents to falsify them from their very earliest days. He also says ‘the only way to decisively settle religious differences is with a fight’, which is interesting given that, while some religions are thoroughly militant, others are pacifist. Elsewhere he says ‘All religions at heart make exclusive claims…’. This is factually untrue. There are quite a number of universalist religions.
However, there is a rather more fundamental problem with his original point: ‘We should be seeking to drive the influence of religion out of the legislature, our schools, and the public square in general.’
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is about. Boyce is really suggesting that views and opinions that proceed from a religious belief should not be welcome in public life. This runs completely counter to universal suffrage, the secret ballot, freedom of speech and conscience, and virtually all the other pillars on which democracy stands. When I go to the ballot box, I vote in secret and have to answer to no-one as to who I vote for, and why I vote. As soon as we start excluding particular beliefs or perspectives from the political process, we have left democracy behind us.
I do not wish to live in a priest-run society, but I don’t wish to live in an atheocracy either. Provided that someone is not breaking the law (and the law should be framed so that it does not unfairly disadvantage any particular group of people), then everyone should have the right to believe what they like. And I, and everyone else, should have the right to try to persuade them of what I believe. I should have the right to believe that my belief is exclusively correct, and I should also have the right to choose to believe things which I can’t substantiate. And everyone else should have these same rights.
These things are all fundamental to liberal democracy, and should be fundamental to Liberal Democrats.
There may well be a place for ‘a radical secular platform’, and it may well prove highly popular. However, Liberal Democrats cannot occupy that place, unless we cease to be (in anything but name) liberal democrats.
It’s entertaining to find a thread so broad in its misconceptions, and so unyielding in its prejudices.
You’re welcome.
The idea that you can put all religions in one bag and discuss them as a category is at best absurd.
Most religions are utterly absurd. They make no secret of it. That’s why you need “faith” to believe in them.
Some religions are unfalsifiable, while others have challenged opponents to falsify them from their very earliest days.
Er . . . but they’re still unfalsifiable.
While some religions are thoroughly militant, others are pacifist. . . . There are quite a number of universalist religions.
Sure, I can start a new religion this afternoon which doesn’t fit my pattern. Principally, I’m talking about the religions which are causing us a global problem. They are not a minority.
This runs completely counter to universal suffrage, the secret ballot, freedom of speech and conscience, and virtually all the other pillars on which democracy stands.
Look, I may have used strong language, but all I’m arguing for is a secular society such as that which pertains in, say, France.
I should have the right to believe that my belief is exclusively correct . . . And everyone else should have these same rights.
That is deliciously incoherent.
Liberal Democrats cannot occupy that place, unless we cease to be (in anything but name) liberal democrats.
I would say that France does both liberalism and democracy better than we do.
Interesting Lawrence. You seem to neatly back away from your main points by saying ‘I’m only talking about the religions that cause a global problem’. In other words, you are admitting that your sweeping statements are without merit. If you want to attack a few chosen religions, go ahead. I might even agree with you.
Why do you think religions are unfalsifiable? Let’s meet up at the next Lib-Dem Federal Party conference and have a one to one on this. Some religions (like some philosophies, such as secularism) are unfalsifiable. Others are not. There is nothing intrinsic to religion that makes it unfalsifiable. Or, if you think you can prove that religions are unfalsifiable, demonstrate this.
Have you ever actually lived in France? I have, and in Belgium, Holland and Germany. Given the choice I would much rather live in Holland, where religious and political freedoms are balanced, than in France, where minority religions are heavily leaned on.
Why is it incoherent to believe that I am right, and also to allow someone else to believe that they are right? Clearly we cannot both be right if our beliefs are exclusive of each other, but we can both accept that the other has a right to believe what they believe.
Your notion — as put forward in your ‘strong language’ — is more exclusivist than most religions. Certainly your notion that there is no God excludes my notion that there is. Why should we not both have the right to believe what we believe? Or, are you effectively saying that you are right and I am wrong, and that I should not have the right to be wrong?
France does liberalism and democracy better than we do? Are we even both living on the same planet? If you want to hold up an example of liberalism and democracy, hold up Scandinavia, Holland, hey, even Switzerland. But not France.
If you want to attack a few chosen religions, go ahead. I might even agree with you.
Principally, I’m talking about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s over four billion people. I think that’s enough to be going on with.
Why do you think religions are unfalsifiable?
Er . . . because they are.
Let’s meet up at the next Lib-Dem Federal Party conference and have a one to one on this.
Steady on, I only joined the party a few weeks ago.
Have you ever actually lived in France?
Only for a month at a time.
Clearly we cannot both be right if our beliefs are exclusive of each other, but we can both accept that the other has a right to believe what they believe.
Of course we can.
Are you effectively saying that you are right and I am wrong, and that I should not have the right to be wrong?
I’m saying that it’s high time religions played by the same rules as everyone else. If they want to interfere in the political process, then they had better start bringing some evidence to the table, not just continue to invoke ancient and irrelevant holy texts while wearing a silly hat.
France does liberalism and democracy better than we do?
Without a doubt, though if there are better examples then that’s fine.
Are we even both living on the same planet?
No. I live on planet Earth. I suspect that you live in some religious fantasy land.
So. You joined our party a few weeks ago, and you are now telling us to change into an entirely different party. And, as a vote winner, you are suggesting that we put before the British people that we should become more like France?
I’ll leave other readers to decide which of us is living in some fantasy land.
You joined our party a few weeks ago, and you are now telling us to change into an entirely different party.
Not really. The Liberal Democrats are already the most secular of the parties. I’m just suggesting that maybe it needs to go further and deeper.
And, as a vote winner, you are suggesting that we put before the British people that we should become more like France?
Well when you put it like that, I agree it sounds like a terrible idea! We should be more like France in terms of a secular constitution, but in no other way whatsoever! How about that?
It seems I’ve come a bit late to this debate. Personally i went to a C of E school until I was 12 and it put me off religion for life! Really, you’re not going to eradicate religion by stopping religious schools, you’re just going to remove those people that want their children educated in their religion from the school system – like in America where there has been a large increase in home schooling. (yes, I understand the American situation is fairly unique and a lot different from ours).
The point is that it is easy to point the finger at education but many people get their religion from their family or friends or come to it in other ways, learning about it in school – particularly in the usual boring C of E way -isn’t really indoctrinating the masses.
If you’re interested in this kind of thing though you should read: ‘American Fascists, The Christian Right and the War on America’ by Chris Hedges – Good Book.
With regards to abortion; it is a woman’s right, hard fought for many years and I don’t think its for us to judge the hard decision these women had to make to abort their children. Having said that there should be more work done to tackle the problem of teenage pregnancy at an earlier stage in this country.
BTW I’m pretty sure there’s more than one Lib Dem MP who would be on the wrong side of a division lobby on abortion.
You’re not going to eradicate religion by stopping religious schools.
I know. But the aim is not to eradicate religion. Honest! The aim is to ensure that the state is not complicit in religious indoctrination. Faith schooling is a monumental folly in my view – divisive, costly, restricting of choice, discriminatory, bad – and I think most people agree that we wouldn’t invent them if we were starting from now.
I’m pretty sure there’s more than one Lib Dem MP who would be on the wrong side of a division lobby on abortion.
Name names! I have a feeling that Paul Rowen is one of them.