Obama, religion and civil society

Madeline Bunting discusses Obama’s religious faith in today’s Guardian in particular his understanding of religiously-motivated civic activism:

Obama’s faith cannot be explained away as political opportunism to meet the conventions of American politics. The conversion was well before a political career seemed possible; besides, his faith has dragged him into plenty of controversy during his campaign. Recently, liberal secular allies have been shocked by his decision not to dismantle, but to take over and expand, Bush’s controversial flagship policy of funding faith-based organisations to provide social services. Even worse, he has chosen the evangelical preacher Rick Warren (opposes gay marriage, anti-abortion but passionate on social justice and climate change) to deliver the prayer at the inauguration. The point is that Obama has not wavered in his passionate faith in the progressive potential of religious belief since he first encountered it in south Chicago in community organising. He was in his 20s, and for three years he was trained in a politics based on a set of principles developed by a Jewish criminologist and an ex-Jesuit with borrowings from German Protestant theologians.

Obama described these three years of community organising as the “best education I ever had”. Michelle says of her husband that “he is not first and foremost a politician. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.”

BHA launches secularism booklet

The New Humanist’s Paul Simms reports on the recent launch of the BHA’s secularism pamphlet.

The debate was opened by philosopher David Papineau…who put his case for a secular society as one intended not to cause differences, but rather to ensure that all citizens are free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as they please, with the state favouring none. He presented secularism as a fair system, and one which encourages the loyalty of all groups to the state, since they have no need to fear that it is infringing on their religious autonomy.

If we are serious about our humanist values, we should look for all those who share them, and work with them.

Richard Norman argues in New Humanist magazine that new wave atheism is aggressively antagonistic to religion but it’s more fruitful to find common ground. He writes:

Humanism is more than atheism, it is about putting humanist beliefs and values into practice and trying to make the world a better place. And that is impossible unless we’re prepared to cooperate with others who share those values, including those for whom the values are inseparable from a religious commitment.

Raising children in a religion – abuse or stability?

Next up to take on Richard Dawkins is the Guardian’s Anne Karpf. She begins:

If Richard Dawkins had his way, a fair number of you and, as it happens, me, would be had up for child abuse. According to him, that’s what religious indoctrination of children by their parents is. And if you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical abuse, he argues, why shouldn’t you sue for the damage caused by mental child abuse?

If you accept Dawkins’s characterisation of religion, you’d probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot: they terrify their kids with tales of eternal hell, fire and damnation, when – that is – they’re not carrying out female circumcision or coercing them into forced marriages. Flat-earthers the lot, they’re brainwashers, fanatically opposed to science and rationality.

Isn’t it curious that we tolerate the stereotyping of religion in a way we’d never abide with race, religion [sic] or gender? I certainly don’t recognise myself in this caricature.

Hmmm in fact Karpf is the one doing the misprepresenation here.

Interview with a Kuwaiti atheist

Mideast Youth has an interview with a Kuwaiti atheist, Sara Sultan.

The interview is conducted by a Muslim on the basis that “Young atheists in the Arab world are extremely frowned upon and thus hardly ever given a voice, and if we really want to represent all kinds of people then we should include the voices of those we disagree with as well. ”

Likewise, Sara’s reason for being inteviewed is her belief that she has a right to express her opinions and has no fear from doing so. “People try to bully us into believing things… into being part of a “larger mass.” They kick us into buying anything from political opinions to religious beliefs. I refuse to be a product of such attempts at misleading us. They can call me what they want, at the end of the day I’m just an independent woman with a firm opinion.”

She distinguishes between Ex-Muslims and Aran atheists:

“Those who dislike Islam are often agnostic, not atheist. Few convert to other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and the Baha’i Faith. Arab atheists should not be lumped with other ex-Muslim Arabs who embrace other religions. We do not have anything in common, especially not contempt for Islam. I turned my back on religion because the lengthy study of religions and their respective histories is what made me realize that atheism is the only right path for me. It has nothing to do with Islam itself or me being a former Muslim Kuwaiti. I would have arrived to the same conclusion if I was a former member of any other faith.”

She retains a level of respect and recognises some of the good individuals within religion:

“I try my best not to generalise when it comes to religious groups. All religions are diverse and have worldwide followers that interpret religious texts in very different ways. People are responsible for their own behavior. I know many Muslims who are extremely religious and yet they are very open minded and understanding as to why some of us reject religion in and of itself. Why should I disrespect these good people by ignoring they exist and complaining that only mullah extremists are the appropriate representatives of Islam? Where I live, many young Muslims are actively rising against religious extremism and are trying to represent what is good about their faith. I appreciate their struggles, I don’t ever discourage them by claiming that they’d only be right or successful if they reject Islam altogether and embrace a new philosophy. It’s not in my place to do that.”

And although  she thinks they are “completely misled and wrong” she does not impose her views on others: “That would be a very hypocritical thing for me to do since I’m the way I am mostly because I am anti-collectivism and I hate people who bully others into believing certain things or forcing them to live life a certain way. Like I said earlier, people are responsible for their own behavior and how they choose to live their life is none of my business just like my personal beliefs is none of theirs. The only thing I would encourage others to do is to think for themselves, to be free thinkers no matter how strict their societies are, to have educated and well-thought out opinions. It’s okay if that means you have to stand out from the crowd. And if some people independently chose their faith and strongly believe in it, all power to them. It’s still admirable and respectful as long as they don’t shove their beliefs in our faces and make us suffer the unnecessary consequences when we refuse to buy into their myths.”

Comments on Hitchens

Newsweek’s On Faith column asks its panel of contributors to comment on ‘new-atheist’ Christopher Hitchens. “Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: “Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.” Why is he right or wrong?”

Panelists – including Sam Harris, Greg Epstein, and the Bishop of Durham – take a variety of stances and are not simply split along lines of belief.  Here’s a few that I agree with, that do not swing entirely for or against. Firstly from Susan Jacoby author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, (2004):

All belief….is irrational by definition. But there are many religious denominations that are no longer violent, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.

Hold on, aren’t atheists suposed to be the ones everyone thinks aren’t good people?

In the Islamica interview with Karen Armstrong I mentioned yesterday, it is also put to her that “Too often it seems that religious people are not necessarily more compassionate, more tolerant, more peaceful or more spiritual than others. America, for example, is a very religious country, and at the same time it is the most unequal socially and economically. What does this say about the purpose of religion?”

She replies:

“The world religions all insist that the one, single test of any type of religiosity is that it must issue in practical compassion. They have nearly all developed a version of the Golden Rule: “Do not do to others what you would not have done to you.”

Is fundamentalism a revolt against secularism?

Interviewed  in the current edition of Islamica, famed theologian Karen Armstrong is asked “What has made Fundamentalism, seemingly, so predominant today?” She answers 

“The militant piety that we call “fundamentalism” erupted in every single major world faith in the course of the twentieth century. There is fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, as well as fundamentalist Islam. Of the three monotheistic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-Islam was the last to develop a fundamentalist strain during the 1960s. Fundamentalism represents a revolt against secular modern society, which separates religion and politics. Wherever a Western secularist government is established, a religious counterculturalist protest movement rises up alongside it in conscious rejection.

Religion and politics don’t mix says Muslim

Firas Ahmad, deputy editor of Islamica Magazine warns of the dangers of mixing religion and politics. He recounts how  the evangelical political lobbying group Moral Majority were so concerned with the perceived immorality and secularisation of liberal America that they aligned themselves with right-wing politics and in the process founder Jerry Falwell “did more to diminish the dignity of belief than he achieved in limiting the sinfulness of modern life.”

When the previously unreligious Ronald Reagan stood against, believing evangelical Christian, Jimmy Carter in the presidential electionsm it was only when “Reagan guaranteed Falwell his full support against abortion, the future president rediscovered his religious roots and Falwell tasted the spoils of his first major political victory.”

The damage that this does to the moral voice of religion is “apparent in a poignant scene from the recent documentary, “Jesus Camp.” In it, an enthusiastic 12-year-old boy, steeped in evangelical ideology, rejects global warming as liberal nonsense. There is no reason for Christianity to take an ideological stand against protecting the environment. However, there is every reason for politicized Christianity, allied with Republican interests, to reject global warming on behalf of large oil companies. Religion is never more meaningless than when it becomes the pawn of political or economic ambition.”

Government blocks secular school that would teach all world views

Anushka Asthana reports in the Observer that senior government officials have blocked attempts to create the first school without an act of collective worship branding it a ‘political impossibility’.

“Dr Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton High School in Tyneside – the first to join the government’s flagship ‘trust school‘ scheme – wanted to challenge the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. There are only a handful of exceptions at faith schools where the daily worship can be based on a different religion.

He also wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not. He intended to follow a ‘third way’ that neither banished religion from the classroom completely nor had children attending daily worship.

According to the Observer “One senior figure at the then Department for Education and Skills, told Kelley that bishops in the House of Lords and ministers would block the plans.”

Freud recognised “the poetry and promise in religion.”

Mark Edmundson writes in the New York Times that while remaining an atheist, Sigmund Freud in his last completed book, ‘Moses and Monotheism’, “began to see the Jewish faith that he was born into as a source of cultural progress in the past and of personal inspiration in the present. Close to his own death, Freud starts to recognize the poetry and promise in religion.”

“He argues that Judaism helped free humanity from bondage to the immediate empirical world, opening up fresh possibilities for human thought and action. He also suggests that faith in God facilitated a turn toward the life within, helping to make a rich life of introspection possible.”

Spirituality for atheists

Julian Baggini write in Psychologies magazine that “you don’t need to be religious to lead a spiritiual existence. Instead of prayers, deities and the afterlife, think morality, beauty and meaning.” Interesting to see him  contributing to what I had always written off as a load of ‘dime-store’ bad science but perhaps such an audience needs a dose of reason more than most.

It’s  a simple but effective counter to the assumption that without religion you are left with a cold dead materialistic existence. He concludes “Personally, I’d like to banish the word ’spiritual’. It misleads us into thinking that we need more than the world w elive in as physical, oprganic beings. What we thik of as ’spiritual’ is simplythose things – love, morality, values and meaning – that make us creatures with rich iner lives. Many of us let go of religion, bu hold on to the vaguer notion of spirituality as a security blanket. It’s time we realised that traditional religion is far from the only source of meaning, values, and a sense of the transcendant.”

View (bad quality)  jpeg’s of the article here: Page1 Page 2

Faith groups agree ‘tolerance pact’ in return for state school funding

James Meikle reports in the Guardian that in advance of the creation of morefaith schools (they already make up a third of state schools in England) “Faith groups will today signal a new compact with the government over the promotion of social cohesion in schools, in return for state education funds”

“The children’s secretary, Ed Balls, is expected to say that ministers and faith groups have a common goal in promoting a more cohesive society, including building understanding and tolerance of other faiths [and beliefs I wonder?]. Ministers believe faith-based schools can play a lead role in twinning arrangements between schools in mixed and more monofaith areas.”

I wonder if it would fair to infer from this that faith schools didn’t previously have a commitment to social cohesion?

Meanwhile the Association of Teachers and Lecturers asked why schools “in which the majority of funding comes from the state, should, as the government proposes, nurture children in a particular faith”.

28% Britons believe in God but only 17% Britons think religion is beneficial

The Sunday Times reports that 42% of 2,200 people taking part in a poll carried out by YouGov considered religion had a harmful effect. 17% thought the influence of religion was beneficial.

16% of those polled called themselves atheists; 28% believed in God; 26% believed in “something” but were not sure what; and 9% regarded themselves as agnostics.

43% said they never prayed, 31% hardly prayed, and 10% prayed every night.

When we asked which of the main religions was ‘most effective’ in getting its message across, 32% said Christianity and 10% cited Islam.

Flawed theory that bigger families mean more religiosity

Mary Eberstadt argues in the June/ July edition of Policy Review that contrary to popular opinion, secularism did not lead to smaller families but it was smaller families (and the reduction of major experiences like births which normally make us think of higher purposes) that led to society becoming less religious.

She uses a few examples to highlight the correlation between family size and religiosity and  of course a basic rule in statistics is that correlation does equal correlation. In this case she suggests that the direction of causation could go either way – from small families to less religion or form less religion to smaller families. Although she talks about evidence that supports the former hypothesis she doesn’t actually say what that evidence is as far as I can see.

She then goes onto to conclude that if her hypothesis is correct then future trends in the reduction in religiosity are no a full gone conclusion – if family sizes go up in the future.  This has happened in the past she says and could happen again (if for example the US provided cheaper education although I always thought higher education mean smaller families!) although she doesn’t acknowledge the critical population crisis the world is facing and that the urgent need for population reduction is being recognised from Rwanda to the UK.

Amir Khan’s Angry Young Men- perpetuating stereotypes?

Did you watch the first episode of Amir Khan’s Angry Young Men last night on Channel 4? “Over four intensive weeks, Amir and his team take six young men with a history of violent and criminal behaviour, and use the discipline of boxing to try to channel their aggression and turn their lives around.”

“Amir Khan also introduces the men to the values of his family and faith, to give them a sense of right and wrong. It’s an opportunity none of them can afford to miss. The police, courts and anger management classes have all failed to keep the six youths away from fighting. This is their last chance to get off the track that leads to prison or death on the streets.” [Watch the trailer]

The religious element is introduced by having some of the ‘angry young men’ talk about their disdain for religion and then contrasting this with Khan’s quiet, polite, supportive experience of religion and a faith-based youth worker and a local priest who are on his team.

In itself this dimension of the rehabilitation is fine – it’s part of who Khan the mentor is and if it works in sorting them out great: they will “try out different churches in Bolton, as well as learning about Islam from Amir Khan. They may not to pursue this when they go home but it helps them to think about their future and the values they want to embrace when their four weeks of intensive training finish.”

But although the Channel website does state that the men “come from a variety of religious traditions” the way this element is set up it perpetuates sterotypes of the degenerate, binge drinking, nihilistic, unreligious youth set against those of the pious, family-orientated, hard working Muslim. Of course the latter stereotype is better than the extremist Muslim sterotype but it a stereotype nonetheless.

To be fair, one of the angry young men is a Muslim and his presence as a (teetotal) violent, swearing figure certainly breaks the media’s saint/ sinner sterotypes (Skins’ Anwar comes to mind as another – also from Channel 4), but so far the narrative is a generally hackneyed one. Then again what can I expect from a reality TV show? I’ll keep  watching though as the narrative and participants could well develop in positive ways.

You can’t just be the President of the Christians

Bishop Thomas Dexter (T.D.) Jakes has written to Time magazine with an encouraging attitude towards the interest in the faith of presidential candidates:

“As you pointed out in your cover story on the Democrats and religion [July 23], God has become pivotal in presidential campaigns—something I could not be more heartened to see. We are a country composed of atheists, agnostics and all brands of faith. In order to be an effective leader, you can’t just be the President of the Christians. It insults our intelligence to assume that we would let difference separate us. While faith is important, it does not negate our ability to make intelligent decisions about our leaders.”

Today’s atheists ignore the fact that religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred

Roger Scruton writes in Prospect Magazine that Today’s atheist polemics ignore the main insight of the anthropology of religion—that religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred. As René Girard argues, religion is not the cause of violence, but the solution to it.

“It is not surprising that decent, sceptical people, observing the revival in our time of superstitious cults, the conflict between secular freedoms and religious edicts, and the murderousness of radical Islamism, should be receptive to the anti-religious polemics of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. The “sleep of reason” has brought forth monsters, just as Goya foretold in his engraving. How are we to rectify this, except through a wake-up call to reason, of the kind that the evangelical atheists are now shouting from their pulpits? What is a little more surprising is the extent to which religion is caricatured by its current opponents, who seem to see in it nothing more than a system of unfounded beliefs about the cosmos—beliefs that, to the extent that they conflict with the scientific worldview, are heading straight for refutation.

Gordon Brown’s religion

Paul Vallely, Associate editor, the Independent writes to Prospect Magazine:

“Richard Cockett asks whether Gordon Brown will be able to find a language to articulate his Christian faith in a way that bridges the divide between secularists and believers. Don’t hold your breath.

Although Brown is happy to embrace values associated with the Presbyterian tradition—“duty, responsibility and respect for others… honesty and hard work”—there is nothing Calvinist about his theology; indeed, there is almost no theology at all. Brown quotes Isaiah in the way that he quotes Martin Luther King and even (though he does not name him) Ronald Reagan, as a colourful and succinct summary of his own beliefs.

Those beliefs, by contrast, are invariably set out using vocabulary of the Scottish Enlightenment. Christianity is held at arm’s length. Brown speaks approvingly not of religion but of “the churches,” which he sees as little Burkean platoons, vital to civil society not for their religious beliefs but because they implement what the common good requires.

This is why, despite coming from a quite distinct church tradition, Brown is happy to work with the Vatican, where in 2004 he became the first British cabinet minister ever to speak. He regards Rome as an effective international actor on issues of global poverty, partly because a huge percentage of clinics and schools in Africa are run by the church, but also because he understands that the churches are the organisations which turn out the most activists for campaigns like Make Poverty History and Jubilee 2000. Brown sees Rome as a powerful ally in the struggle to get the UN’s millennium development goals taken more seriously.

In all this he reverts to a modernist universalism, by contrast with Blair, whose attitude to religion was distinctly postmodern. You will get no talk from Gordon about a post-secular society. Secularists will find this refreshing, but Muslims in particular will have difficulties; they do not buy into Brown’s notion that Britishness must be predicated only on shared values, and want their cultural and religious identity acknowledged. Interesting times.”

Religion works, but at what price?

This interesting post by Lawrence Boyce on the wall by of the New Humanist group on Facebook : “A question which often arises in the many religious debates to which we have recently become accustomed, is: does religion make people good, or at least better than they would have been without religion? Typically, the believer brings up the case of someone who was inspired to do tremendous good on account of their faith. The sceptic responds by saying that the good deeds would have been performed regardless, because the person in question was fundamentally honourable in a humanistic way. The believer maintains that, au contraire, the good stuff would never have happened without religious belief as the prime motivator. The sceptic then questions the integrity of doing anything merely in response to divine fiat, and so it goes on.

I would like to advance a metaphysical proposition to the effect that religion does indeed make people better, but that this is nothing to be proud of, rather it should be a matter for concern. I was particularly struck with this notion while reading about the athlete Jonathan Edwards in a recent article from the Times . Edwards, as I’m sure you know, was an international triple jumper. He won a gold medal at the Sydney Olympics and has held the world record for the last twelve years. He was also a committed Christian, and it was a regular occurrence for him to come off the track and speak to the waiting reporters about his faith in God and his local church.Wonderful stuff. The only fly in the ointment being that on retiring from athletics and finding himself with a little time to think things through, he promptly lost his faith. Oops!

But what struck me is how Edwards, both then and now, acknowledges the crucial role that religion played in his life. “Faith was the reason that I decided to become a professional athlete, in the same way that it was fundamental to every decision I made. . . . Looking back now, I can see that my faith was not only pivotal to my decision to take up sport but also my success. . . . Believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious.” These are just a few choice quotes from the article. So if somebody who was once a true believer is still telling us that faith was a prerequisite for his sporting success, then I really think we ought to sit up and take notice. The plain fact of the matter is that without God, he would never have triple jumped further than any man had triple jumped before. But how can this be if God does not even exist? Where does the extra “energy” come from, if it does not come from the famous tin of sardines which Edwards carried everywhere in his kitbag as a symbol of the power of Jesus in his life? In short, how can a delusion change anything at all?

The answer is that religious belief is not something which may be maintained in isolation. Instead, the believer is part of a sprawling and diverse community which spreads all around the globe, as well as forwards and backwards in time. In order for Edwards to be buoyed up in his faith, it must be shared by millions of others, essentially so that he doesn’t feel a complete idiot. But such a proliferation of religious belief is not without cost, as any casual inspection of a newspaper will reveal. Put bluntly, Edwards’s gain is somebody else’s loss. There is a cost to the faith-based component of his success, but it is not one borne by Edwards himself. Rather, the cost falls upon the countless numbers who have suffered at the hands of religionists throughout history and in the present day. So the next time you hear someone claim that their faith has inspired them to perform great works, or to lead a happier and healthier life, don’t think, “that’s nice.” Don’t even think, “that’s bollocks.” Just think, “somebody’s paying for that, quite possibly in blood.”