What is the matter with Chris Huhne? On the great freedom-of-speech versus right-to-offend argument, he has always struck just about the right note – for instance, on Holocaust denial and the Danish Cartoons. But now his judgement appears to have deserted him when last week he backed the decision of the British government to exclude a Dutch politician for the unforgivable crime of saying something nasty about Islam. Coming on the twentieth anniversary of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the timing could hardly be worse.
There’s really nothing quite like a religious question to upend our political and moral intuitions and reduce any sort of reasoned argument to rubble. So it was that Chris declared Fitna to be “definitely inciting people to violence,” on the Today programme. Definitely inciting people to violence? It is true that the 17 minute film does contain endless incitements to violence. The trouble is that all the incitement is coming from the mouths of Muslim clerics. It is also true that these images are interleaved with some fairly offensive written statements. But they are mostly quotations from the Koran. Could it be that Chris got a bit confused?
Jo Swinson fared a little better on Any Questions by distancing herself from Chris and acknowledging that Fitna did not in her view incite violence. But then she drifted off into some fairly banal platitude. “Any text can be twisted,” she said. “If you want to pick and choose, you can actually create something horrific out of any text that you like.” Any text, Jo? I’d love to see a version of Fitna based on the Liberal Democrat constitution. You could juxtapose a statement about freeing people from poverty, ignorance and conformity, with some beard and sandals imagery maybe. Enough to incite anyone to violence, I’m sure you’d agree. Could it just be that some texts are in fact nastier than others?
It’s a common objection of course – that the offending quotations have been “taken out of context.” But what I’d like to know is precisely what context would make all the misogyny, homophobia, and violence contained in our various sacred texts acceptable? If we wish to read either the Bible or the Koran “in context,” then it might first help to understand who wrote them – to wit, primitive men who would be completely outshone in knowledge and understanding by a modern twelve-year-old with access to Wikipedia. No, the people who are truly taking the holy books out of context are called Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. who claim that these writings are the “word of God” – whether it be that they believe this literally or in some ambiguous manner.
I don’t think I much care for Geert Wilders. His political hero is Margaret Thatcher – that is rarely a good sign. His perfectly reasonable desire to move freely between nations is undermined to some extent by his own anti-immigration politics. He should know that you can’t defeat an ideology by erecting physical barriers and pulling up the drawbridge. Calling for the Koran to be banned is totally daft. It would be quite impossible, even assuming such a thing were desirable which it isn’t. But I do share one thing in common with Wilders, namely that I am not prepared to read the Koran and pretend that it means the exact opposite of what it says, for the sake of some political expediency.
The Koran reads like an apartheid manual. The dichotomy between the believers destined for paradise, and the unbelievers (i.e. me) destined for the eternal torments of Hell, is set up on almost the very first page. In case you weren’t paying attention, this sentiment is then repeated ad nauseam throughout the text. It is what makes the Koran fundamentally divisive and means that it will never form the basis for any “global peace and unity.” The reference here is to an event which Nick Clegg attended last October in which he shared the same platform with a Holocaust denier, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and a one-time supporter of the Rushdie fatwa, among others. Strange but true. Here was Nick’s justification on that occasion:
Of course I don’t agree with the views and opinions of every speaker at this event. But I do believe in free speech. I do believe in an open society where disagreements are aired and expressed, not ignored and suppressed. The best way to undermine a liberal society is to undermine the freedom of expression which we all enjoy, and I will never ever do that.”
Fine words indeed, but in the light of the Fitna debacle we could now stand accused of grotesque double standards. Nick shares a platform with some of the finest Islamic fruitcake on offer, but Chris wants to ban Geert Wilders for calling a spade a spade? I think they really ought to get together and straighten this one out.
What is missing from this debate is any objective sense of what is and is not offensive. By any objective analysis (as opposed to one clouded by religious metaphysics), the Koran is more offensive than The Satanic Verses, the Danish Cartoons, and Fitna all combined. Hundreds of deaths ensued from these and similar controversies, all the mayhem emanating from Islamic extremists, and yet bizarrely it is now Wilders who stands accused of inciting violence. How has it come to this? It is as if we have reached a place of logical and rhetorical insanity from which there appears to be no immediate escape.
I’ll leave the last word to Kenan Malik speaking on the World Service last week about the Rushdie affair:
It seems to me that the critics of Rushdie lost the battle in the sense that The Satanic Verses continued to be published, but to a large degree they have won the war in that we have come to accept broadly that the giving of offence is wrong, and that makes the writing culture much less rich than it should be. We’ve got a very constrained culture when it comes to questions of what you can say, what you can do, and what you can write.”
I fear that Malik may have this about right. The late Ayatollah Khomeini still casts his long and malevolent shadow. The Satanic Verses is freely available; they say it is a terrific novel; I must read it one day. But the overarching political climate appears to have evolved into one which places all religion, but especially Islam, beyond criticism, parody, or censure. Unfortunately that is a criticism, parody, and censure which some of us feel has never been more essential since the events of 9/11. Perhaps one day my fellow liberals will wake up to this, and I won’t have to come on here and bat for the far right again.
In the meantime, the final score is as follows – Geert Wilders: quatre points, Jo Swinson: trois points, Chris Huhne: nul points.
* Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat member and occasional contributor to LDV.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Peter Davies
Romer WH
Tristan Ward
expats
122 Comments
I spoke to a friend the other day who has watched the Wilders film who described it as a simplistic and unpleasent. This doesn’t mean it should in anyway be banned but it would be nice to see the criticism be a bit more even handed in this debate.
Where to begin with this one…I think first I would say that I find the tone of this piece offensive and I’m just a shade away from complaining to the site moderator about it as I don’t think it does the writer or the party any favours. However, the key subject is free speech so let’s take it apart as far as a brief comment allows.
You state “If we wish to read either the Bible or the Koran “in context,” then it might first help to understand who wrote them – to wit, primitive men who would be completely outshone in knowledge and understanding by a modern twelve-year-old with access to Wikipedia. ”
Wow, this is ignorance beyond comprehension. These two books were written udner different circumstances to suit different cultures, histories and experiences. Both were clearly written by extremely learned people whose intelligence, put into context, far outshines anything the average 12 year old could obtain from wikipedia. Both books sought to improve their societies and both addressed major issues of importance to those societies, from war to famine to marriage to infanticide. To dismiss their authors as primitive is just plain stupid.
Similarly, to dismiss the Koran because you don’t like some of it is laughable. Sure, it has some contradictory passages, just like the Bible but that’s no reason simply to write it off.
Quote: “The Koran reads like an apartheid manual. The dichotomy between the believers destined for paradise, and the unbelievers (i.e. me) destined for the eternal torments of Hell, is set up on almost the very first page.”
Are you serious? This demonstrates a complete ignorance of Islam. I suggest you go back and look at the Koran again before spouting this utter nonsense. Islam expressly accepts the validity of other faiths – rather more charitably that Christianity or Judaism do.
Both the Bible and the Koran contain much of value which you can choose to misinterpret as you wish but which millions of people benefit from. Read the news, Laurence: Muslims are not all extremist towel-headed bombers but faced with idiotic commentaries like this, they’re probably all pretty p*ssed off with such nonsense being spouted about their faith.
Finally, I read the Satanic Verses when it was first published precisely because I wasn’t going to let anyone tell me what I could and could not read. It’s not a great book but read it anyway. It might broaden your narrow mind.
Amazing: I’ve re-scanned this piece to be sure it isn’t brilliantly written satire. It isn’t, which defies comprehension for a LD blog site.
While I can certainly agree that the article was a little more vituperative than was strictly necessary, I must wonder what the Koran would need to contain before Wit would think criticism of it was acceptable. The impression I got from your post Wit was ‘How dare Laurence Boyce say what he thinks on the blog of a party devoted to free speech’. Like it or not, the Koran does contain passages which are distinctly illiberal – are we to pretend they’re not there?
Adam, I’d say by all means criticise the Koran but this piece is idiotic in what it says. I absolutely agree that the Koran contains some dangerous passages but the evidence of the nearly 2bn muslims around the world is that the great majority of them are no more violent thatn anoy other group, which suggests that muslims are just as capable of filtering out the bad stuff as anyone else is.
I totally support free speech but this is more of an anti-Islamic polemic and as such it does no one any favours.
“Calling for the Koran to be banned is totally daft.” No, it is not not daft, it’s oppression. You are standing up for a racist who would revoke the civil rights of Muslims in their own country. It would seem that you hold the same primitive view of Islam that Wilders has, so maybe that is why you you are so keen to minimise the poison in his film. You seem to me to be like many Liberals on this issue, wearing your commitment to free speech on your sleeve whilst leaving your brain out of gear.
Good post, Lawrence. It doesn’t make me comfortable to be sympathetic towards someone like Wilders, but I mostly agree with you on this.
Wit and Wisdom:
Both the Bible and the Koran contain much that is bigoted and nasty which you can choose to ignore as you wish but which millions of people suffer from.
The point is, all nice moderate Christians, Muslims, etc. have had to somehow arrive at a decision about which bits of their religious texts to chuck away, which bits just need a bit of “correct interpretation”*, and which bits are alright as they are. But where did those decisions come from? They came from their own moral intuitions and the values of our society. This is the problem with religions, and it’s why people like me aren’t especially happy to just leave believers alone as long as they don’t want to kill us – because this kind of woolly thinking may be OK for you, but it equally gives license to fruitcakes to reach whatever conclusions they want to reach. If the belief system holds a text to be the Word Of God, then no, it’s not alright just to say “Sure, it has some contradictory passages, … but that’s no reason simply to write it off.” On the contrary, that’s a very good reason to either write it off or take it (all of it) at face value.
*Correct, here, means “leads to conclusions I want to reach”. See also “misinterpret”, which usually means “leads to conclusions I don’t want to reach”.
Wit and Wisdom(?),
“However, the key subject is free speech.”
Actually it isn’t really for me. I’ve never been one to say that we have no free speech. As everyone has pointed out, banning Wilders has just led to even more people seeing his film. For me, the key issue is the problem of Islam and religion in general, and why everyone seems to be too cowardly too talk about it.
“Both [the Bible and the Koran] were clearly written by extremely learned people whose intelligence, put into context, far outshines anything the average 12 year old could obtain from Wikipedia.”
Something that made me laugh at the end of Nick Clegg’s speech at the GPU. If you freeze the last frame, Nick stands against the backdrop of a quotation from the Koran which reads, “And indeed we created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water an earth).” To be fair, I think most 12 year olds can do better than that.
“I suggest you go back and look at the Koran again before spouting this utter nonsense.”
I’ve got it right in front of me. I could have quoted endless material which is offensive, but I have avoided doing so. In any case, it would all be “out of context” right? But on the whole it’s just drivel. I liken reading the Koran to being forced to eat a ton of Ryvita.
“Islam expressly accepts the validity of other faiths.”
Yes, of course.
“Both the Bible and the Koran contain much of value.”
Go on then. Hit me with it. Give me one quotation from the Bible and one from the Koran that I can’t live without. That gives me a genuine insight not to be found elsewhere. That tells me something that is not either offensive, false, platitudinously obvious, or just drivel. I honestly can’t see it.
“Muslims are not all extremist towel-headed bombers.”
Given that nobody I am aware of has said that, it seems to be that it is in fact you who is peddling a false stereotype of the critics of Islam.
“It might broaden your narrow mind.”
You do a great line in righteous indignation, W&W, but it just doesn’t stack up.
The fact is that very few of us, either liberal, fascist, or whatever, actually have an understanding of Islamic theology. This is mainly due to the shockingly poor level of teaching of any non-Christian faiths in our schools, particularly faith schools.
But the article very particularly does not say Muslims are violent people. It merely says that the Koran can be read as an incitement to violence in a way in which other texts cannot. This seems to me to be a fairly clear point. I would like to make a distinction between anti-Islamic polemic and anti-Muslim polemic. Criticising a religion as embodied in its texts and scriptures is acceptable, criticising all of its adherents because of the actions of a few of them is not. I do not believe Boyce has done the latter. Admittedly, the article isn’t written well enough to make this distinction as clear as it should be.
And Norman – please don’t conflate support for absolute free speech with support for anyone who may possibly use it.
Excellent post Laurence, good to see you back.
Andy Hinton, you have perhaps hit the nail on the head in your comments on religion. To me – and I assume to millions of others – religion is a guide to life, it is not the absolute truth. The vast majority of people who subscribe to any religion will interpret it according to their country, their education, their experiences and their prejudices – and we all have shedloads of those.
As a Christian – a troubled one most of the time precisely because of the countless contradictions – I don’t ‘throw any of it away’, I just use my brain to apply this very useful but by no means perfect 2000 year old set of ideas to my ipod fuelled, Mock the Week watching, car driving, mortgage paying world as best I can to add a little value to it.
There will also be those freaks and weirdos who take the various religions as the absolute truth and seek to enact every word.
Similarly, there will be people who think Warhammer is real or that the Lord of the Rings is the best guide to the world.
To repeat my essential point, I’m 100% for free speech and the right to criticise muslims, the Koran and Islam – along with all other faiths and none – but this article is not reasoned, it is just offensive and – that most heinous of sins – plain wrong.
Brilliant! You see, there is a god and she’s got a sense of humour. The advert for the ‘International Muslim Matrimonials Site’ at the bottom of this post proves it!
Moderators, I’m trying to post replies, but they’re going nowhere. Good to see things haven’t changed much round here.
Wit and Wisdom
Which is the whole point. Your argument supports the position that most people are good in spite of their holy texts, not because of them.
If you truly believe, as the texts demand, that they are the word of god, then by “filtering” you become a heretic and are by that very act doomed. Doesn’t that make the extremists the more honest and consistent?
For an understanding of what the Koran (and the Haddith) say I recommend the books of Ibn Warriq, a secular Koranic scholar.
The Koran is a really nice and friendly book when dealing with fellow believers. Once you get onto non-believers, and those that don’t follow it’s commands (e.g. gays, liberal women etc) it quickly turns extremely nasty.
W&W: I’m not aware of anyone blowing anyone else up over Lord of the Rings or Warhammer.
Andy – let’s be fair here, they do want to. But thankfully the Warhammer fundamentalists tend to never leave their mum’s basement. The ones you see in Games Workshop are the ones who pick and choose parts of the rule book to suit themselves.
While I agree that Wilders has the right to speak his mind, & that there are homophobic & misogynist tendencies within Islam (as with Christianity) which should be opposed, there’s another story that Lawrence Boyce seems to have missed & Geert Wilders certainly has.
I wonder whether people of this type have ever actually met any Muslims.
Islam is not some monolith, & it is the mistake of the “left-wing” offence-takers (who are not genuinely left-wing, just idiots), the jihadists, & the likes of Wilders & Mark Steyn to assume it is. I doubt whether these people have met a Muslim in their lives.
There are pronounced liberal & reforming tendencies within Islam. They deserve our support. This can be brought about by a secular state without tolerance for the Blair/Brown idiocy of listening to religious “leaders”. Treat religious believers as we treat atheists, as individuals who don’t need to be patronised by suggesting that they all follow the will of someone who asserts that he (because it’s always a he) is the representative of a “community” (a word which is going to be filed alongside “hard working families” in the litany of phrases I loathe).
Women who do not want to wear a veil, refugees who flee theocracy & are glad to live in a secular state now, free thinkers, & so on all exist within the “community” that the Rowan Williamses, Geert Wilderses & Omar Bakri Mohameds view as a lumpen body.
Is this not the essence of liberalism, that we view them as individuals?
I will agree that there should be restrictions on immigration partly for reasons which aren’t relevant to Fitna, also as many who live here are not integrated, & if you haven’t digested a meal you’d better stop eating in case you throw up altogether…
As for Wilders’ suggestion that the Koran be banned, it is ridiculous rubbish from a philistine. I have yet to read the Koran, but I am quite familiar with the English Bible (& am an atheist), which I think it is a landmark book of enormous significance without which one struggles to understand our literature & culture. In Muslim countries the Koran is viewed in a similar way. I think they should all be wead more widely, despite not believing a word any of them say.
You could infer that I’m a woolly in between being shot by all sides & doomed for failure. That would be true if it weren’t for the millions of Muslim liberals & potential liberals who are out there as potential allies & can undermine jihadists from within Islam.
My comment is in limbo. Is there any chance of this being sorted & that? It is one of my better efforts, I reckon. Am always glad to talk about schaith like this.
Martin, I do believe that most people are fundamentally good – but each of us has an amazing capacity for evil as well, which is where religion casn help by offering some guidance.
The Bible, for example, is not the word of God, it is the account of people’s experiences with God. It is therefore immediately open to interpretation.
Muslims believe the Koran is the world of God but most muslims still have brains to allow them to use this text for their benefit.
Here’s a simple historical example of how Islam is not a ‘hang ’em and flog ’em’ religion: when the Muslims took over Jerusalem they pretty much left everyone alone. When the Christians turned up they slaughtered everyone.
Historically, Islam’s approach to other religions has been to cruelly, er, tax them more. That’s hardly bloodthirsty, just good economic sense. Christianity – and whether you’re an atheist or not its your culture if you live in these islands – has historically destroyed anything it couldn’t understand.
This kind of argument comes up with reliable frequency on the blogosphere and what it perenially shows up more than anything else is the quite incredible intolerance of atheists unwilling to think that religious people can think for themselves.
Seriously, get a life.
Laurence, I don’t agree that Wilders presents an essentially accurate portrayal of Islam. There are a number of refutations of Fitna available on the internet which indicate that Wilders may have based his film on inaccurate or out of context Koranic translations.
I still think it was wrong for his views to be banned, though.
“I despair of LDV sometimes”
You could always just stop coming here then. My eyes would stay dry.
Well I haven’t really been here since Christmas. You’re right, I shouldn’t have bothered.
Laurence Boyce.
When you’ve quite finished with the personal attacks you might bother to read what I’ve said, instead of lumping me in with the “blogosphere” crowd. Do you want people to think you are the apologist equivalent to Wilders?
I never once referred to “Islam”, I referred specifically to its texts. “Islam” is whatever people choose at a time and place in history to make it. Just as Christianity is.
During the crusades Christianity was a jihadist prone bunch of devout leaders that believed god wanted them to conquer and slaughter their way to supremacy; not unlike many of their islamic equivalents today.
Much of Islam at that time was a pretty benign, tolerant, enlightened (comparatively) and, importantly, secular society which was going through it’s scientific golden age (some of which still forms the basis of much of today’s science).
The reason Islam and the middle-east aren’t at the forefront of knowledge and the centre of science is because the priesthood started imposing their will again, closing centres of learning, removing the secular nature, the freedom of enquiry and expression and the right to contradict scripture and became more pious. Those once scientifically advanced cultures in the middle-east have been essentially at a scientific standstill since.
The balance swung the other way with the Christian nations. They became more secular, more free and open, and science blossomed; as did tolerance and liberalism.
Now those two diverged cultures are colliding.
Wit, you can’t use the actions of a religion’s adherents to argue for the morality of its scriptures. This would mean that every action taken by a Muslim should be seen through the prism of Islam – which, as Asquith very effectively argues above, is a very illiberal stance. It also leads to many apparent contradictions – for every sparing of Jerusalem, you have a Darfur. For every Ibn al-Haytham, you have a http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.beheading/. If you wish to prove Martin wrong, you must do so by telling him why his interpretation of the Koran is incorrect – and you can only do that with reference to the Koran, not those who have read it.
Our anti-spam filtering has been a bit over-keen this afternoon. I think all the missing comments have been rescued now and duplicates etc sorted out. Apologies for that.
Thanks for tidying things up Mark.
Okay, I’ll bite.
So Geert Wilders (anti-freedom of speech except when it is HIS freedom of speech; anti-freedom of movement except when it is HIS freedom of movement; the atheist’s equivalent of Stephen Green) scores more Boyce Points than Jo Swinson because she made the point that Fitna takes a load of things out of context. I notice you have missed out the important point she made about YouTube being an excellent example of freedom of speech in action.
What are these Boyce Points a measurement of, exactly? Taste in hairstyle?
Now where was I . . .
Norman,
“You are standing up for a racist who would revoke the civil rights of Muslims in their own country.”
No I’m not. Wilders wants to prevent Muslims from entering the Netherlands and even to repatriate Muslims. It should go without saying that I am totally opposed to that side of his argument. But there is unquestionably a problem with Islam. A problem which the government is spending millions of our money in an attempt to solve. See last night’s Panorama for a start. If we are not prepared to acknowledge that basic fact then we will just gift the far right with a propaganda victory, which is basically what happened last week.
“It would seem that you hold the same primitive view of Islam that Wilders has, so maybe that is why you are so keen to minimise the poison in his film.”
No, I’m afraid can’t quite join in all the righteous indignation against Fitna. Everyone else is doing that, but almost nobody is prepared to admit that Wilders is half right, though no more than half right. Anyway what’s all the fuss about? It’s just a piece of cheap propaganda. Calling it a “film” is already to give it too much credit. But if Wilders is the only one prepared to state the obvious, then we deserve to be inflicted with such material.
James, it’s reassuring to know that however bad things get, you’ll always find the time to be superior to other atheists.
A few notes on the Qu’ran that I think are relevent:
1. It’s in old Arabic. Hence no vowels. Hence there are some bits where literally no-one knows what they’re supposed to say. Most of them have been worked out but there are one or two still under debate, which include some violence ones.
2. It’s epically unspecific. Most of it can be interpreted in several different ways, including some of the violence parts that may related to specific raids.
3. Many Muslims argue that many Islamic laws (whether Qu’ranic or Hadith-based) were specifically revealed/developed to cope with the hardships of a desert-based culture, and they therefore can be safely dismissed.
4. If you’re not Muslim, all you have to do is pay a tax, and you’re OK. And you absolutely can’t kill other Muslims. So blowing up a tube train including other Muslims and people who pay there taxes is fairly explicitly un-Islamic. You can certainly use bits of the Qu’ran to justify it, but to do so you do have to take them out of the sense in which they were intended (i.e. if they were originally intended as narrative, or for the apostates).
Lawrence, I have to say I think this post is antagonistic, offensive, and ill-thought out in several places. You could have made just the same points without phrasing it so rudely, and to be honest I don’t see why people are always trying to offend other people.*
Andy, you say that you can’t judge a book by the actions of those who have read it. If you can’t judge Islam by the Jerusalems of this world, you also can’t judge it by the Ayatollah Khomeneis and 9/11s.
Asquith – right on about the culture.
*Obviously I defend your right to say it, but in return you have to defend my right to think you’re a tool.
Only you, Laurence. Consider it a form of survival of the fittest. 🙂
“The Bible is not the word of God, it is the account of people’s experiences with God.”
I really think we ought to collect these. I have a Christian friend who is rather fond of saying, “The Bible is not the word of God, but rather the word of God is to be found in the Bible.” Can anyone fudge things better than these two?
BTW, thanks for the support Adam, Andy, Julian, Martin.
Lawrence, my love, it’s great to see you back. I think you were a bit harsh on Jo, but otherwise? Great stuff.
“I have to say I think this post is antagonistic, offensive, and ill-thought out in several places. You could have made just the same points without phrasing it so rudely.”
Sorry PB, but it’s been 2,000 years and counting, and still not a shred of evidence to back up the claims of religion. If it wasn’t placing the world in conflict, it would hardly matter. But it is, so I can’t find it within me to be polite about what is just so much vain self-indulgent twaddle.
Thanks Jennie. Jo’s OK. She always cheers me up a bit with her enthusiastic energy. I guess it was too much to expect her to start slamming the Koran on live radio. xxx
“But there is unquestionably a problem with Islam.”
No. There is unquestionably a problem with Islamic extremists, but that is different from saying there’s a problem with Islam as a whole. Or are you Geert Wilders in disguise?
No Bernard, there is a problem with Islam, starting with the simple observation that it says all sorts of things that are not true, and then things get progressively worse from there. If we do not start to hurt Islam, and religion more generally, then in another generation we will be no further forward – just having the same old arguments with a different set of characters, assuming the nukes haven’t gone off.
Interesting though that you mention extremists. The question that seems to be currently occupying the government is “who exactly is an extremist?” Or to put it another way, if we’re going to sup with the devil, should we use a short spoon, a long spoon, or a medium spoon? In any event, the government has obviously decided on a longer spoon than they’ve been using up until now. I wonder if last week’s ban was a sop intended to counterbalance this decision?
This is a very good post. The only thing I find offensive is Wit and wisdom’s expressed wish to complain to the site moderator and ban it.
Laurence I feel that you are to be congratulated for writing a very good post. The sentiment reflects mine entirely.
Not a very good post.
I think this case provides a demonstration of how the making of criticisms is a fine art: it’s vital to score a bullseye with every shot elsewise you only create an opening for your opponents.
Yes, I’m getting a real pasting OJ. Thanks for the support guys (above). Much appreciated.
Foregone Conclusion
The fact is that very few of us, either liberal, fascist, or whatever, actually have an understanding of Islamic theology. This is mainly due to the shockingly poor level of teaching of any non-Christian faiths in our schools, particularly faith schools.
Do you claim there is any better teaching of Christianity? Surveys suggest that most Brits do not know what Easter means to Christians let alone have any more detailed knowledge. Anyone who knew a little Christian theology would know that the New Testament explicitly rules out the idea that the Bible is to be intended as some sort of rule book, but debates like this usually involve people making arguments on the basis that it is.
People should not blame schools for lack of information. They can educate themselves if they care enough.
The working-class autodidacts of the 19th century did not sit around moaning about the fact that they never attended school at all, they taught themselves to read after toiling in manual jobs all day & by their intelligence & effort reached a high standard.
I take the point that some are not naturally quipped to do this. But almost everyone, certainly including me, could reach a higher level given the work.
Laurence,
are you by any chance getting confused over the difference between not very good and bad?
It strikes me that there is a similar difference between not banning this film and agreeing with it’s content, don’t you?
To elaborate on my earlier message, Andy Hinton writes:
The point is, all nice moderate Christians, Muslims, etc. have had to somehow arrive at a decision about which bits of their religious texts to chuck away, which bits just need a bit of “correct interpretation”, and which bits are alright as they are. But where did those decisions come from?
without an understanding that the very origins of Christianity come from thinking on these lines. One may see it as a group of Jews, inspired by a charismatic rabbi who came to a sad end after annoying everyone with his wise cracks, trying to work out what it is of value on their religion that could be taken and made into a universal religion rather than a tribal one. One in particular, who originally disliked the movement but later saw it as an ideal way to sell a reformed Judaism to the Greeks amongst whom he lived, worked very hard to try and fit it in with some philosophical ideas that were going around at the time. In his letters, which are preserved as part of the scriptures, you can see how a practical argument about the ticklish subject of whether adult converts to the movement needed to be circumcised as the old laws said, evolved into a discussion on the role of those laws. Agreement was reached on these issues after a discussion chaired by one of the original followers of the charismatic rabbi who had emerged as the group spokesman. In a dramatic speech, the chairman announces “I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”
Knowing this ought to be basic general knowledge. Christianity does not arise from the Bible having appeared as if by magic and a religion being invented on that basis. What we call the Bible itself records these discussions. But how many people actually know this? Discussions like this suggest almost none. Most people discussing Christianity from the outside do seem to think the Bible is an undifferentiated mess from which things can be picked out at random from any point.
“the Koran is more offensive than The Satanic Verses”
“I must read it one day”
Maybe you should read it first before spouting off about it.
Matthew, you are only relating the early history of Christianity, which bears little relation to today’s reality. You will know that after the events you describe, the Emperor Constantine helped to established Christianity as a political force – the basis for your own religion, Catholicism. Then later there was a Protestant reformation which very much restored the Bible to being the literal word of God.
It’s no use saying that the Bible is obviously not meant to be read in that way, when in fact millions of evangelical Christians do just that. Ditto, Muslims who perhaps have an even greater devotion to the Koran.
If you really want to return to origins then you should be a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, and if he returned today, he would head straight for the nearest Synagogue and would be most perplexed and disturbed to be told that his followers were to be found elsewhere.
“Maybe you should read it first before spouting off about it.”
Oh, I’ve skimmed through The Satanic Verses. There’s nothing there to get offended over – just a few swear words which I don’t much like seeing in print. It’s just a book. If you don’t like it, leave it on the shelf.
Laurence,
I didn’t want to be rude by adding after “Christianity does not arise from the Bible having appeared as if by magic and a religion being invented on that basis” the words “although another religion, called Protestantism, was later created on that basis” because that would be unfair on all but the evangelical “fundies”. Those fundies clearly don’t know really the Bible themselves since they seem ignorant of the passages I mentioned earlier and their implication.
I am aware that the position of the Koran in Islam is different than the position of the Bible with Christianity. Islam is much more “here’s the book, now base the religion around it”. Most people discussing these issues seem unaware of these distinctions, perhaps because we come from a Protestant culture, loud-mouthed evangelical fundies are very keen on giving the impression that theirs is the only form of Christianity that exists, and the profound ignorance of western culture which comes from our rotten schools means most people here don’t have the knowledge to know why they’re wrong in that.
“Those fundies clearly don’t really know the Bible themselves.”
How tragic, given that they spend so much time reading the damned thing.
The bible is a hodgepodge of collected writings that a committee (the council of nicea) decided represented the most representative collection of works at that time (400 years after the fact).
Many of the writings were in ancient greek, WHICHDIDNOTUSESPACINGORANYOTHERFORMOFPUNCTUATION and were therefore open to some misunderstanding. They were multi-generational copies of originals copied by hand by individual scribes, some of whom didn’t even speak the language and were therefore unable to spot mistakes, and others that were followers and inclined to “clarify” parts of the text they copied.
You also have the problem of defining which bible, leaving aside the myriad of changes, re-writes additions and subtractions over the centuries, you have the fact that the orthodox bible, as opposed to the catholic, contains a different number of gospels, let alone differences in the composition of the other texts.
If you’re interested in just how the bible came about and how much it has changed since the formation of Christianity you should look up Biblical Criticism, which is the science of doing exactly that.
Many an evangelical has become a moderate, or even an atheist, by studying how the bible came about.
“Misquoting Jesus” is a good primer, it’s short and does a good job of introducing the concepts of Biblical Criticism, and literary Criticism more generally, using examples from the gospels.
The messages in the bible may be good or bad, evil or benevolent, but there is considerable doubt as to whether the message we read today is the same message spoken 2000 years ago.
correction: “literary criticism” should read as “textual criticism”
“… the orthodox bible, as opposed to the catholic, contains a different number of gospels …”
I know it’s wildly off-topic, but I’m puzzled as to what you’re thinking of here.
My mistake, that should have read books, not gospels, and affects mostly the old testament.
Here’s an example of the differences: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm
To clarify, by composition of the texts I mean the translation/interpretation used (which affects both old and new testaments), which in some instances can change the meaning of the texts.
“Emperor Constantine helped to established Christianity as a political force”
this is a very top-down, authoritarian and centralised view. His mother was a Christian and around 10% the population of the empire were adherents to the faith before the battle of the Milvian bridge – I’d say that amounts to a significant political force and one which probably tipped the balance in Constantine’s decision.
Your description of Jesus as a jew also sounds pretty broad-brushed which takes into account neither the classical divisions between different belief systems nor the developments which they have undergone in the intervening two millenia.
And there I was remembering your defence of evolution as one of the primary grounds of your opposition to faith.
Laurence, your standards seem to have disappeared.
Martin
Thanks for clarifying that.
“Your description of Jesus as a jew also sounds pretty broad-brushed which takes into account neither the classical divisions between different belief systems nor the developments which they have undergone in the intervening two millenia.”
Please may I have your permission to send that one into Private Eye, Oranjupan?
Anon,
if you find a request for clarification amusing, laugh away.
Well yes, it is a bit more complicated than that. For the full version, see Michael Portillo’s contribution to the Christianity series on Channel 4! The point is that when all the dust had settled, we were left with Popes who wielded immense temporal power and were themselves Emperors of sorts. This had nothing to do with what Jesus stood for. Quite apart from anything, Jesus expected the world to have ended by then. Hence I was a bit surprised to see Matthew, a Catholic, espousing a sort of “back to basics” philosophy.
Jesus was a Jew through and through. See Howard Jacobson’s contribution to the same series!
I oppose faith because it is a source of great conflict. Evolution is just one of the things things that make the claims of religion v. unlikely. If something that is almost certainly false, is causing conflict . . . well it’s a no-brainer.
But evidently not enough of a no-brainer for Gordon Brown who is going to pay homage to the Pope tomorrow, I think he said. A sad spectacle.
Laurence,
I’m not sure it’s wise to accept personal opinions of authorial presenters as dogma.
I also don’t think it’s wise to confuse a personal opinion of spiritual truth with physical fact.
I think you might be trying out the non-overlapping-magisteria manoeuvre there. It doesn’t fly. The spiritual and physical realms are one.
Also, the fact and opinion is pretty clearly delineated in the channel 4 series. I recommend them all. The last episode was great – people falling all over the floor. Who could doubt the power of religion?
Oranjupan
You’re really disputing whether Jesus was Jewish? I mean, what do you think he was? Hare Krishna?
As Laurence said: a typical way of avoiding rational arguments about religion is to claim the existence of (arbitrary) limits to reason and rationality. For example – ‘there is a “spiritual truth” which transcends reason!’. How do we know this? ‘Oh, we just do—and you can’t even ask that, because otherwise you’re bringing reason back into play’. Of course if someone wants to sign up to such delusion, that’s just fine, but when deployed in a debate it ruins any chance for reasonable argument.
I’m not disputing anything, merely trying to point out that in the early first century these things were not as clearly defined as they are today.
In fact the gospels can be read as a narrative discussion on the question of overlapping identities and the problem of how this issue is dealt with legally.
Laurence,
I agree that these issues are capable of overlapping, but at the same time you have to draw the distinctions which show where and when they do and where and when they don’t.
Which returns us neatly to the case at hand, showing how liberal principals remain consistent even when applied to different situations with different results (or perhaps more accurately because they can be applied to different situations with different results).
Julian, I’d rather have a productive debate than a reasonable one.
Oranjupan
“I’d rather have a productive debate than a reasonable one.”
Brilliant stuff! Keep ’em coming, please do …
“Brilliant stuff! Keep ‘em coming, please do …”
Isn’t this called an appeal to emotion?
If you upend reason, then you can’t have any kind of debate. It’s over before you even begin.
Just to clarify, I am not Anonymous (!)
“If you upend reason, then you can’t have any kind of debate.”
My, you have been away from LDV for a long time, haven’t you?
Laurence:
“If we do not start to hurt Islam, and religion more generally, then in another generation we will be no further forward”
I find this a very worrying statement for someone calling themselves a liberal to make. There’s a difference between believing religion to be wrong, and criticising it on that basis, and wanting to ‘hurt’ people who happen to believe in religion. Why not just leave them alone? Or does freedom not extend to religious belief?
“I oppose faith because it is a source of great conflict. Evolution is just one of the things things that make the claims of religion v. unlikely. If something that is almost certainly false, is causing conflict . . . well it’s a no-brainer.”
Do you oppose politics because it is a source of great conflict?
And when you say it’s a no-brainer, what do you mean? That religion should be banned? That religious believers should be persecuted? Or what?
I expect Laurence meant that religion should be criticised (not banned), and that religious influence on sources of power (such as government) should be attacked. I very much doubt he meant that people should not be free to kneel in their houses and pray to anyone or thing they wish; and of course individuals should not be ‘hurt’ nor ‘persecuted’.
I’m a worrying chap. I want to hurt religion because it is hurting us. I’ve given up believing that there can be any reasonable truce, basically because religion is beyond reason. I don’t want to hurt people, though I recognise that some feelings are going to be hurt along the way.
When it comes to people, I don’t really care who is naughty or nice. I’m more interested in opposing bad ideas and encouraging good ones. If we don’t deal with the underlying ideology, then it will be the same story in the next generation. People who today are not yet born, will tomorrow be living out the stereotype of the extremist Muslim who is a threat to society. It’s hard to get too angry with someone who is not yet born, and I am not angry with them. Rather I am angry with all of us, for tolerating the insanity of religion for far too long.
I’m not opposed to political conflict because, unlike religious conflict, it serves a purpose. Should we have a high tax or low tax economy? These questions really matter and affect us all, and should be thrashed out in the democratic arena. But theological arguments are utterly futile, and it is tragic to shed even one drop of sweat over them. In reality, we are shedding innocent blood over them. By the way, I accept that people can hold political beliefs in a quasi-religious way, and obviously that is not helpful either.
Interestingly, when it comes to political debate, pretty much anything goes. I try to be careful and use the right language – to attack Islam, not “Muslims.” But you won’t find such care taken over our political opponents. “Same old Tories,” is the sort of line you’ll hear from the leader at party conference. Nobody gets up to point out that it is unfair to brand all Conservatives as fossilised remnants of a bygone age. But why the double standard?
I suppose I know the answer to that question which is that religion is central to people’s identity in a way that political beliefs are not. But that only happens as a consequence of religious indoctrination, and that is the cycle we must break. Anyone raised in a strict religious environment is not really “free” in a meaningful way to believe anything else. Or maybe not until it is too late.
I don’t want to ban religion. I want to hurt religion, get it on the back foot, put it back in the box, marginalise it, make it the object of unbridled scorn. We have already done this with certain religions – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, the Moonies. These are the religions that we’re allowed to take the piss out of. The rest of religion needs to join them in short order.
If you want one practical measure, then it’s coming up at Harrogate – the vote on faith schools. Pretty much everything I have been saying has been gearing up to this point. Regardless of the practicalities, we need to adopt a clear commitment to phase out faith schools over time. If that motion is not accepted then I am really going to throw all my toys out of the pram.
You have been warned!
“If that motion is not accepted then I am really going to throw all my toys out of the pram.”
I’m afraid that as threats go that’s marginally less alarming than “I will do such things – What they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth” …
By the way, do you want to ban all faith schools, or just the ones within the state system?
Why should we listen to Lawrence Boyce? What has he ever achieved in life?
“I want to hurt religion because it is hurting us.”
Who is the ‘us’ you are referring to? And what do you mean by ‘hurting’? I can think of no circumstances in which someone’s personal faith in a divine creator has directly hurt me, even if I don’t share that belief. On the contrary, I can think of several political decisions which have directly affected me. Should I seek to close down all political debate on the basis that some political decisions have harmed me? No, of course not.
If you can’t see just how dangerous and how absurd it is to argue that all religion is harmful, I would question your commitment to liberal values. If you truly believe it is harmful to others then, under a classic JS Mill definition of liberty, I don’t see how you can argue that there shouldn’t be legal restrictions on religious belief.
By the way, I agree with you on the issue of faith schools, but you don’t help your case by making such sweeping statements like ‘religion is hurting us’.
“By the way, do you want to ban all faith schools, or just the ones within the state system?”
Hmm, dunno really. I’ll just go along with whatever the secularists have got planned for conference. I mean I won’t actually be there – I’m not that keen! It might be more appropriate to apply restrictions against the teaching of religious beliefs or creationism as fact. I believe such measures have been adopted in Sweden.
I’ll get back to you Bernard . . .
“I can think of no circumstances in which someone’s personal faith in a divine creator has directly hurt me.”
Then you’ve very lucky. My religious upbringing hurt me. The office workers in the twin towers were hurt big time. The Holy Land has been hurting for ages, and there is no sign that this is about to stop. Does it have to directly affect you before you’re on board?
“Should I seek to close down all political debate on the basis that some political decisions have harmed me?”
No, you should participate in the democratic process, which you do obviously. But religion is not democratic. Religious leaders claim to represent their flocks, but in truth they only really represent their own interests.
“If you can’t see just how dangerous and how absurd it is to argue that all religion is harmful, I would question your commitment to liberal values.”
Principally, I think that religion is false. It benefits some, and harms others, the former at the expense of the latter.
“If you truly believe it is harmful to others then, under a classic JS Mill definition of liberty, I don’t see how you can argue that there shouldn’t be legal restrictions on religious belief.”
Because you can’t place legal restrictions on what people believe. Instead, you have to mount arguments against beliefs.
“I agree with you on the issue of faith schools, but you don’t help your case by making such sweeping statements like religion is hurting us.”
But faith schools are hurting us. They are helping to create a divided society.
Here’s a late night fantasy game that might be worth playing. You are going to be re-incarnated into a new life and I am a sort of demi-god who allocates where people are to go. Because I have a partial (though not complete) ability to see the future, I can tell you roughly what is going to happen. There are two options:
a) I can place you with a devout Muslim family. Here you will learn to take your worldview from the Koran. You will not turn out to be very enlightened. You will be a creationist for instance, and will think it is OK to beat a woman as long as no mark is left behind. You will have homophobic views, but here you protest too much. Because deep down you know that you are gay which leads to serious internal conflict. You marry a woman, but of course you are never happy together. Or . . .
b) I can place you with a liberal secular family. Here, from a very young age, you appreciate that this life is all there is and you are determined to make the best of it. You understand evolution, and hence where you have come from and why you are the way you are. You are a girl, by the way. You study hard and make a good life for yourself. Of course there is always some unhappiness. For instance, you desperately want children, but it doesn’t happen. Eventually you adopt.
I can’t tell you much more than that. What shall I do Bernard? If you have no strong views either way, then I think I’m going to place you with the Muslim family.
“My religious upbringing hurt me.”
So what you’re really saying is “I owe you pain”?
Anon, my experience is but a pinprick compared to religious conflict the world over. Now why don’t you get a name?
“My religious upbringing hurt me. The office workers in the twin towers were hurt big time. The Holy Land has been hurting for ages, and there is no sign that this is about to stop.”
I obviously can’t comment on your own experiences, but I would point out that the office workers in the twin towers were hurt by religious extremists, not by religion as such. If you don’t understand that distinction, you’re rather less intelligent than I give you credit for. And the conflict in the Holy Land is not solely about religion and it’s naive to think it is – it’s about land and politics and economics and about a dozen other things.
“But religion is not democratic. Religious leaders claim to represent their flocks, but in truth they only really represent their own interests.”
Political leaders often claim to represent their members/supporters/class or nation, but very often they really represent their own interests. What’s the difference?
“Principally, I think that religion is false. It benefits some, and harms others, the former at the expense of the latter.”
You appear to be arguing from a position of faith and dogma. The benefits that some people get from religion are always at the expense of those who don’t believe? Really?
“Because you can’t place legal restrictions on what people believe. Instead, you have to mount arguments against beliefs.”
Nonsense. There are plenty of examples where legal restrictions have been placed on what people believe, or at least on the expressions of that faith. They’re not a liberal solution, obviously, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And the point remains: if you genuinely believe that somebody’s personal religious faith is harmful to others, which is what you have been arguing so far, you probably SHOULD be seeking legal restrictions on it. It’s illogical not to.
being liberal and secular is not incompatible with being religious. Neither is an ability to reason necessarily unfeeling.
The point about religion is precisely that it is unproven (ie neither proven or disproven). This removes any assumption of premature judgement and offers hope and the chance of repentance to those who may otherwise despair.
In some ways I’d expect Bernard to use the Scottish legal system as an example of how this well-adjusted approach is more liberating.
I happen to agree that many of the claims of religions are false and result from misinterpretations, but this is not to say that a spiritual life cannot be meaningful and fulfilling.
Some of us just haven’t yet fully grappled with our inner animals!
“The point about religion is precisely that it is unproven.”
More accurately, religion is unfalsifiable. Stick to that which is unfalsifiable, and you can get away with almost anything. Over the centuries, Religion has done just that.
“I would point out that the office workers in the twin towers were hurt by religious extremists, not by religion as such. If you don’t understand that distinction, you’re rather less intelligent than I give you credit for.”
Well first of all, I’m highly intelligent, obviously. But secondly, the picture you present is not wholly accurate. It suits many people to talk about a large body of moderates and a tiny handful of extremists. But in reality, what we are dealing with is a spectrum, a continuum of belief. That is the question the government is grappling with at the moment – who exactly is the extremist? Certainly if we move away from the very extreme, we are no longer talking about small numbers. We are talking about vast numbers who hold deeply ignorant views – creationism, homophobia, etc. Does none of that trouble you? At what point exactly does religion tip over into insanity? I think it begins in a place of insanity from where extreme developments should come as no surprise.
“And the conflict in the Holy Land is not solely about religion and it’s naive to think it is – it’s about land and politics and economics and about a dozen other things.”
Yes, there are always several factors, but religion is definitely one of them. Moreover I don’t believe there will be any peace until religion is taken out of the equation. And the idea that Tony Blair can sort it all out is the worst joke I’ve heard in a long while.
“Political leaders often claim to represent their members/supporters/class or nation, but very often they really represent their own interests. What’s the difference?”
They are elected. We get the government we deserve. But we don’t get the religion we deserve. We inherit that like a rotten smell.
“The benefits that some people get from religion are always at the expense of those who don’t believe? Really?”
It’s a pet theory of mine. I can’t prove it.
“There are plenty of examples where legal restrictions have been placed on what people believe or at least on the expressions of that faith.”
Yes, but it never works, and we’ve moved beyond all that, thank goodness. I just want an argument. A no holds barred argument.
“Now why don’t you get a name?”
I think I could ask you the same question in respect of a life.
You could do that. It would be a remarkable display of originality.
Hmmm. On reflection, you probably have been asked that question many, many times.
Indeed I have. But always by the same guy called Anonymous.
A few observations:
1) Much of this thread seems to revolve around pain – alleged pain caused and the desire to “hurt” reciprocally. Notably, all this talk of pain doesn’t seem to actually move anything forward. Indeed, this thread is almost identical to any number of threads that have spun out of Laurence’s articles over the past couple of years. It is the very definition of neurotic behaviour. Break the cycle guys! You are not Laurence’s therapy group!
2) As liberals, our enemy is authoritarianism – regardless of its origins. I don’t think anyone is questioning that religion, at certain periods history and in many many examples in the world today, has been used for authoritarian ends. I would even agree with Laurence that it is particularly vulnerable to authoritarian tendencies and that religious people tend to be complacent about that (cf. Rowan Williams career since becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury). What I can’t agree with is that religion is by definition authoritarian and illiberal. I have simply seen too many examples of relgion being used as a means of liberation to take such a claim seriously.
3) Atheists who categorise the world into the religious (=bad) and the non-religious (=good) have to be prepared to defend some pretty unsavoury types and denounce some exemplar liberals. Desmond Tutu is one of my heroes; I don’t give two figs whether he believes in a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud or not. By contrast Laurence (and this seems to have been forgotten in this thread) made the extraordinary claim that Geert “4 points” Wilders was greater than Jo “3 points” Swinson (let alone Chris Huhne). That way lies utter darkness.
4) I’ve noticed an increasing trend amongst liberal religious people to talk about the “golden rule” essentially trumping all other aspects of religion. Now, I would take issue with them in their claims that this ethic is rooted in religion (there is too much scientific data on animal behaviour and primitive societies to suggest that it is more hardwired than that – if anything religion gets in the way), but we should regard this as a positive development. I’d rather spend my time encouraging religion to follow this path (and ultimately abandon sectarianism and that exaggerated sense of difference that tends to go hand in hand with religion) than to lecture people about how they must believe in the literal truth of their religion’s particular text and are therefore eeeevil. Most normal people of faith are cheerful hypocrites and we should be celebrating that, not going out of our way to tell them off.
I will now shut up and leave you all alone again.
“Political leaders often claim to represent their members/supporters/class or nation, but very often they really represent their own interests. What’s the difference?”
They are elected. We get the government we deserve. But we don’t get the religion we deserve. We inherit that like a rotten smell.
Not all political leaders are elected, as you’re well aware.
“The benefits that some people get from religion are always at the expense of those who don’t believe? Really?”
It’s a pet theory of mine. I can’t prove it.
That’ll be one of those unfalsifiable statements that you’re so against, is it?
Although you certainly can’t prove it, you could try to justify it. But to justify it, you’re probably going to have to answer the following questions:
Religion has inspired great art, great buildings and great music. Have non-believers never benefitted from any of that?
Religion has also inspired many people to fight for many ideas that we as liberals hold dear, such as freedom of speech or the abolition of slavery. Again, have non-believers never benefitted?
Religion has inspired many charitable and social causes. No benefit to non believers?
“Indeed I have. But always by the same guy called Anonymous.”
Oh dear. Still not quite got the hang of this anonymity thing, eh?
From my perspective, the primary issues surrounding the FITNA controversy are those of freedom and speech and freedom of movement within the EU. Those of us who favour both were winning the argument hands down until Laurence Boyce came along and penned yet another of his anti-religion polemics. The enemies of liberty must be celebrating.
quoting Laurence Boyce
I can place you with a liberal secular family. Here, from a very young age, you appreciate that this life is all there is and you are determined to make the best of it. You understand evolution, and hence where you have come from and why you are the way you are. You are a girl, by the way.
Oh Laurence, I think there is such an easy riposte to this that I shall give it, even if it’s not entirely the line I’d take personally:
I can place you in a liberal secular family. Here from a very young age you appreciate that this life is all there is and you are determined to make the best of it. Your are a girl by the way. You are continually given the message that all that matters is that you are sexually attractive and have lots of material possessions. You are pressured into having sex in early teenage years because the boys tell you that’s what sexy girls do and you’ll have no friends and be abused as a “lezzy” if you don’t. You make yourself seriously ill by starving yourself because you are told to be sexy you have to be ultra-thin. You don’t study hard because that isn’t what sexy girls do, the manufactured entertainment that dominates your life just keeps showing you girls who have lots of material possessions because they won fame on some talent show or by taking their clothes off.
“That’ll be one of those unfalsifiable statements that you’re so against, is it?”
Precisely so. That is why you will never ever hear me demand respect, tax breaks, exemption from parody, seats in the legislature, special schools etc, for my little theory.
Do you get it? We’re not talking about a level playing field are we?
I’m putting you with the Muslim family by the way.
“Those of us who favour both were winning the argument hands down until Laurence Boyce came along and penned yet another of his anti-religion polemics.”
You weren’t winning the argument when one of our leading Lib Dems was calling for a ban on Wilders. And I’ll have to assume that Nick was in agreement with Chris, unless anyone has heard anything to the contrary. Just think of my article as a punishment you all have to endure for their uselessness.
Matthew, I realised when I penned my fantasy that I was playing on some stereotypes. But they are stereotypes that are not without a grain of truth to them. Would anyone care to argue that we are MORE likely to find creationism and homophobia in a secular family? Your stereotype is plausible too, though in fact I made it clear that the liberal secular world was not without unhappiness, even tragedy. But do religious people never get anorexia? I think they do. Do they never have teen sex? I think they do that too. The difference is that they feel really really guilty about it.
I’m not going to put you with the Muslim family. Bernard’s got that slot. But a vacancy has just arisen in a Catholic family which I know you will appreciate. A nice Lefebvrist far right-wing Holocaust-denying traditional Catholic family. I’m sure you’ll be very happy.
Laurence Boyce wrote:
“Would anyone care to argue that we are MORE likely to find creationism and homophobia in a secular family?”
Homophobia (though not creationism) was alive and rampant in the former Soviet Union and its satellites, where atheism and materialism were part and parcel of the officially sanctioned belief system.
You don’t have to be religious to be anti-gay; or an atheist or a materialist. But it isn’t too hard for a materialist to argue that homosexual acts have no survival value and are a sympton of bourgeois degeneration.
Anyway, leftists have now jettisoned their ertswhile (and wholly incincere) espousal of gay rights as they realise there are more votes to be had from Islamic fanatics.
Oh drat. I’ve allowed Laurence to divert me from the primary issues – free speech and freedom of movement within the EU.
Laurence, do you think Messrs Huhne and Clegg are more or less likely to abandon their pusillanimity as a result of your intervention?
No, I’ve more or less abandoned the idea that bloggers make any difference to anything. It looked promising for a while, and I daresay we will continue to have our moments. But no, they won’t read my article.
We were all homophobic and racist if we go back a bit. Let’s deal with the present. It’s where it’s all happening, after all.
James,
“Much of this thread seems to revolve around pain – alleged pain . . .”
Alleged pain? The world is groaning under the burden of entirely predictable religious conflict and you talk of “alleged pain”? How did you come to be in such an advanced state of denial? Does it really have to touch you personally before you wake up? If so, then we’re all doomed.
“As liberals, our enemy is authoritarianism . . .”
And ignorance and conformity too, no? Any of that in religion? How happy should we be exactly to see Nick Clegg at the GPU in front of a backdrop which says that man was fashioned out of clay, declaring that “my values are your values”? I bet the audience was as unimpressed as I was.
“What I can’t agree with is that religion is by definition authoritarian and illiberal . . .”
Millions of people worshiping a deity they have never seen and taking their worldview out of a prescribed book? It’s Stalin’s wet dream.
“Atheists who categorise the world into the religious (=bad) and the non-religious (=good) have to be prepared to defend some pretty unsavoury types . . .”
Never said that, but you persist with the caricature. But in any case, your argument crumbles because Geert Wilders is a Roman Catholic who has tried to make a hopeless and incoherent argument that Christianity is better than Islam. Of course if he had made a razor sharp argument against Islam from a rational standpoint, coupled with some strong humanist ethic, he might have scored dix points.
“Most normal people of faith are cheerful hypocrites and we should be celebrating that . . .”
And in so doing, you manage to be condescending towards religious people in a way I would never dream of. You score minus points.
I guess you’ll be joining the PVV then. See you!
Yes, of course, I’ll be joining the PVV.
But if you want to see the rise of the far right, or for that matter just the Conservative party, then please carry on pretending that Islam is a fairy cake with a cherry on top. To see what Nick Clegg should have said at the GPU, check out the contribution from Dominic Grieve. He very politely but firmly fingered two individuals on the speaker programme, denounced them as “madmen” (his words), and indicated that he would not be willing to share a platform with such characters again. He even earned a decent round of applause, which goes to show that there must have been a fair number at the GPU who appreciate a bit of honesty. Either that or they weren’t listening to a word he was saying.
Nick Clegg instead goes for the grand conciliatory gesture. “Of course I don’t agree with everyone on this platform, but in a free and tolerant society, blah, blah, blah.” So he’ll be meeting up with Geert Wilders next? I sincerely hope not.
Today’s fruitcake links:
The Islamic school that teaches that chess is really evil. Apparently, “the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hand in the blood of a swine.” Naturally they received a glowing Ofsted report.
And in some sad news, the Westboro Baptist Church have also been refused entry into Britain. What a shame. Those guys are so entertaining.
“The Islamic school that teaches that chess is really evil. Apparently, “the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hand in the blood of a swine.””
Rather odd, considering chess was introduced into Europe by Muslims in the first place …
Yes, but that was so long ago as to be irrelevant. Talking about how good Muslims were hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean much to me.
Regardless… as much as the Swat Valley was a massive setback for reason, I still think the secularists have the future. Iraq may even vindicate the surge, if not the botched strategies used at the time of invasion, if it becomes a secular democracy. The theocratc in Iran haven’t got much longer.
At a time when democratisation looks like a strong potential, it is more important than ever that western countries support secularists & liberals here & in the Muslim world.
Liberalism & human rights go round the world. Let us stamp upon the relativists & offence-takers who support sharia now.
“Yes, but that was so long ago as to be irrelevant. Talking about how good Muslims were hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean much to me.”
?
I’m really starting to wonder whether someone’s put something into the water round here.
I didn’t say anything about Muslims being “good” hundreds of years ago. I just remarked it was odd that Muslims should object to chess, seeing that chess was introduced into Europe by Muslims in the first place!
Could it be because the Queen is more powerful than the King? If anyone has a better theory . . .
Well, don’t some Muslims object to artistic representations of the human form – “graven images”? Maybe that’s it.
Well, don’t some Muslims object to artistic representations of the human form – “graven images”? Maybe that’s it.
There you go. There had to be a rational explanation…
I’m loving the adverts popping up amid this thread: first of all Muslim dating, and now thehijabshop.com.
I agree with Laurence 100% and am beginning to wonder why I joined the party. If Huhne, and others like him, regard Wilders as a bigger threat than the Islamists, they’re in serious want of a reality check. I’ve watched Fitna. It’s a wake-up call from Holland we should heed, as we tiptoe around Muslim sensitivities in the name of “tolerance”.
Julian H: I myself am being offered online tuition in Hebrew, “with Israel’s best teachers”.
Laurence: Yes, it’s disappointing that Westboro people weren’t allowed in. I felt I understood them so much better after watching Louis Theroux’s documentary on them, especially pastor whats-his-face who leads them. You really need to see these people up close to realise just how fruity they are…
That was an exquisite documentary . . .
Thanks for the support Margaret. I still like Chris Huhne and am going to stick with the Lib Dems. The overriding quality of Lib Dems is that they are nice. The trouble is that you can be too nice sometimes . . .
Margaret Nelson
If Huhne, and others like him, regard Wilders as a bigger threat than the Islamists, they’re in serious want of a reality check. I’ve watched Fitna. It’s a wake-up call from Holland we should heed, as we tiptoe around Muslim sensitivities in the name of “tolerance”.
Do you mean “wake-up call” in the sense that people who vote BNP sometimes claim they do it in order to issue a “wake-up call” to the political classes?
Fitna clearly hasn’t served its purposes, unless those are to wind up Islamic aggression, because the aggressive and over-the-top way in which it has been presented has caused a closing of ranks and a closing of minds amongst Muslims. They have found it too easy to dismiss it as just a piece of anti-Islamic “hate propaganda”.
Islam isn’t going to go away, so we do need an intelligent debate with its adherents about current very dangerous trends within it, which I do not think are a necessary part of the religion. Somehow we need to get it across that it is possible to be critical of some aspects of the religion or the way some interpret it, without that necessarily meaning we hate the religion and hate all those who find value in it.
There are people who are both Muslims and Liberal Democrats, and I could hope at least that they could take the lead in that. I find the pusillanimous response from many of these people to issues like this disappointing, but I would like to keep a liberal optimism that free discussion and acceptance of agreement to disagree is the way forward.
It would have been great of the reaction to Fitna from leading Muslims was “OK, this film says nasty things about our religion, but we believe what it says is wrong, and here’s our argument which shows that” rather than “This is anti-Islamic hate propaganda, condemn it, ban it” (and don’t say anything which counters its message). I am sorry it wasn’t, and I found it frustrating trying to get this message across in the other thread on this issue to some Anonymous poster on the other “Fitna” thread, because the more I tried to be reasonable with him/her, the more s/he just showed that s/he was rather dense and did not seem to understand the principles of liberal argument. But I really hope there are better and more intelligent Muslims than him/her who could see the point.
Matthew, I meant a wake-up call to the danger of an increasing number of Muslim immigrants, served by immigrant imams who speak barely any English (or Dutch), whose values are incompatible with the secular democratic values that I hold dear, like free speech, gender equality, and tolerance towards those of other religions and none.
I have no problem with immigration (before you compare me with the BNP), but I do have a problem with people who come to enjoy the advantages of living in the UK while resisting integration and aiming to impose their illiberal view of how we should live and relate to one another. For example, thanks to a general nervousness about upsetting or offending Muslims (some of whom are very easily offended), many have got away with the sort of behaviour that would have attracted severe penalties in any other circumstances. Muslim women who’ve fled male relatives threatening their lives in so-called “honour” cases have spoken about how little was done to help them, because it was seen as a “cultural” thing.
Matthew, you wrote, “Islam isn’t going to go away, so we do need an intelligent debate with its adherents about current very dangerous trends within it, which I do not think are a necessary part of the religion.” On the contrary, the Qur’an is quite specific about what is “necessary”, and it’s not equality for women, a tolerant attitude towards disbelievers, or forgiveness for apostasy. The Bible is also full of nastiness, and while a few deluded fundamentalists may still regard it as their guide for life, Christians don’t, in general, go around threatening to kill anyone who offends them. Twenty years after the Rushdie fatwa of death, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme about the book burners (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7883308.stm). While some of those who’d bayed for Rushdie’s blood have moderated their views in the interim, others still said they’d be justified in killing him, because the Qur’an was quite clear on the issue.
Yes, there are some nice Liberal Muslims. There are moderate Muslims like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (who I like very much), but their brand of Islam is very different from the sort we’re importing from Pakistan and the Middle East. I know some nice, moderate Muslims, but even they will prevaricate when challenged about the teachings of their faith. For example, at a local forum of faiths on death and bereavement, I asked the Muslim speaker if he believed that I’ll go to hell when I die, because I’m an atheist. He wouldn’t answer me, or look me in the eye. If he was a doctor or a fire-fighter, would you trust him to treat everyone equally?
If there’s a general antipathy towards Islam, it’s not just because of Islamist terrorism and the sort of rabid fundamentalism shown in Wilders’ film, it’s because of demands for special treatment for Muslims and a muddle about “multiculturalism”. The Government, and that silly Blears woman in particular, have been so busy trying to cultivate some sort of dialogue with so-called Muslim “community leaders” – self-appointed, unrepresentative men – that the interests of individuals in those communities, particularly women who are dominated by their male relatives, are being ignored. Another fool, Archbishop Williams, suggests that there’s room for Sharia law in the UK, oblivious to the fact that it discriminates against women. Conservative imams must be rubbing their hands with glee, since their behaviour is being labelled “traditional” and “cultural”, and, as I wrote earlier, their sensitivities are being indulged in the name of “tolerance”. They must think we’re all fools.
Margaret, you miss my point.
I believe the religion of Islam has flaws, if I did not I would be a Muslim. I believe too that it has got itself in a rut whereby illiberal, nasty and stupid interpretations of it seem to be dominant. I further believe that it has got off lightly in the UK and that many liberals are hypocritical in that they pussy-foot around it and will not criticise it in a way they feel free to criticise other religions – particularly mine. I don’t like the term “moderate Muslim” because I think that may be misinterpreted as “half-hearted Muslim”, but I very much wish that those who have a more thoughtful and liberal interpretation of the religion could take a braver stand and develop and promote that interpretation more. It’s just that I don’t think Wilders’ film and approach has helped in that process.
I’m sorry that Margaret missed your point, but I’m sure you’d have to agree that she made a lot of good ones instead! One of the tragedies of the current situation is the way that multiculturalism has now come into disrepute. Just when the ghost of Enoch Powell was receding into the past and we were all perfectly delighted to see people who looked a bit different to us, along comes separatist religion to wreck progress.
Today, Ed Husain paints a depressing picture of the state of British Mosques. Maybe people will listen Ed. Or maybe they won’t.
A couple of Margaret’s points are interesting:
“Muslim women who’ve fled male relatives threatening their lives in so-called “honour” cases have spoken about how little was done to help them, because it was seen as a “cultural” thing.”
There’s an interesting recent discussion on this issue over at the F word, at http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/02/guide_to_islam
The post I’m looking at is by Victoria, about a third of the way down. For those of you not clicking through (though you should, it’s a great website), the key paragraph is:
“I lose count of the number of murder stories that I’ve read in which a woman has been killed by a jealous husband. When such crimes are committed by Muslims, it’s an honour killing. When the same scenario arises in a non-Muslim community, it’s just plain murder (and therefore somehow less abhorrent).”
I think this is a really good point and very true. I think a lot of the problem here is about misogyny in the police rather than attitudes towards Islam (but that’s another debate altogether).
“On the contrary, the Qur’an is quite specific about what is “necessary”, and it’s not equality for women, a tolerant attitude towards disbelievers, or forgiveness for apostasy.”
On the contrary, as I tried to make clear in my previous post, the Qu’ran is not specific about anything. Most of the more restrictive laws come from the hadith or, more often, later judgements by the later Caliphs, particularly Omar, so can be reinterpreted. The fact that many of the currently dominant branches of Islam are not open to such reinterpretation does not mean the entire religion should be condemned; there exist many versions of Islam that are open to reinterpreting some of the more restrictive rules, using logic such as: well, the apostasy rule was designed for a time when people fought in the armies of Islam, and embracing Islam was the equivalent of swearing allegience to a military force, so apostasy was like treason. This isn’t relevent now we live in an age of peace, therefore the rule is no longer relevent.
Also, there are some very specific rules on treatment of non-believers, which include nothing more than charging them a poll tax, so your comment in that respect is inaccurate.
“I asked the Muslim speaker if he believed that I’ll go to hell when I die, because I’m an atheist. He wouldn’t answer me, or look me in the eye. If he was a doctor or a fire-fighter, would you trust him to treat everyone equally?”
Yes, I would. I could also ask you the same question regarding many Christians. I have Christian acquaintances who are convinced I am going to hell because of my lack of faith, and I don’t think that means they are unsuitable to be fire fighters or doctors. How is it any different with doctors?
In response to Margaret’s
The Bible is also full of nastiness, and while a few deluded fundamentalists may still regard it as their guide for life, Christians don’t, in general, go around threatening to kill anyone who offends them.
I will re-iterate what I wrote upthread, which is that the Bible has neither the same sort of structure nor the same position within Christianity that the Qu’ran has in Islam. Protestantism, at least in its more strident forms, is an attempt to turn Christianity into Islam by treating it as if it is. That is why I am not a Protestant.
Fitna’s idea on the quoted Qur’an verses is skewed (perhaps that was the intention). For example it started by quoting Chapter 8 Verse 60, suggesting this book is inciting violence. Chapter 8 is titled Spoils of War. And verse 60 is just saying be prepared or to spend on defence, as a deterrent from being attacked and most countries do this. Read what the next verse is (61): “but if the enemy incline towards Peace, do Thou (also) incline towards Peace,…”. The general context of the chapter is on the conduct of war, not promoting terrorism.
“The Qur’an is not specific about anything.”
In that case, it is even more worthless than I had imagined it to be.