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.”

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.

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”.

Other organisations could learn from churches in rebuilding social capital

The Guardian has a feature on American social scientist Robert Putnam his first paper “on his five-year study of social capital in the US – the biggest survey of its kind – which concludes that ethnic diversity does reduce social capital. He found that the higher the diversity in a neighbourhood, the lower the levels of trust, political participation and happiness between and within the ethnic groups, and he called it “hunkering”. But what has prompted criticism is not his analysis of hunkering, which the right has seized upon with delight, but his optimistic assertion that this is a short-term problem that, with “intelligence and creativity”, can be overcome. …[His] Harvard/Manchester research programme has identified four initial areas of social change on which to focus: immigration; the changing workplace and the consequences of women moving into the paid workforce; the changing role of religion in society; and inequality, particularly the mounting evidence of the inheritance of class and how it restricts social mobility.

…What fascinates him is tracking where the new forms of social capital are developing and why they are successful. One of his key areas of interest is religion – religious affiliations account for half of all US social capital. He cites US megachurches which, typically, attract tens of thousands of members, as “the most interesting social invention of late 20th century.”

Madeline Bunting claims humanists lack a moral language

It’s that time again for another Madeline Bunting attack on humanists in the Guardian. Apparantly Gordon Brown is using religious shorthand to show moral purpose: “his government was going to be about two things – competence and serious moral purpose. It’s the latter which this son of the manse repeatedly emphasises as he refers back to the devout family background which provided his “moral compass”. He is the third consecutive Labour leader to put religion at the heart of his politics, and it’s not just a matter of leaders.

It’s a curious phenomenon that at a time when Christianity continues its steady decline in this country, religion has re-emerged as a central inspiration of political rhetoric – not as the flash-in-the-pan aberration of one individual but now well established as a convention of the centre ground, acknowledged by the Cameroons as much as by Labour. This strange afterlife of religious belief must be pretty galling to secularists and humanists.

…It is as if with the collapse of what John Gray in his new book calls the “political religions” – most significantly, communism – there is no effective alternative ethical language other than that of the Bible. The 20th-century traditions of humanism, secularism and even atheism have signally failed to develop a popular language of morality in which to describe moral character and the disciplines of responsibility, self-restraint and duty which are essential to democracy and social wellbeing. If you want to convince a sceptical, inattentive electorate of your moral purpose, you have to use the shorthand of faith.”

Hmm.. talking about a ‘moral compass’ and ’soul’ is hardly putting religion at the centre of politics now is it (more like a desperate attempt at rebranding)?

So what if we still employ language with religious roots? Meanings change and it’s be pretty odd if we threw away our cultural roots suddenly. So for example, when when we talk about charity today most of mean something slightly different than the original biblical concept. Ideas like ’spirituality’ still are useful to a humanist like myself. None of these indicates a failure of humanism any more than co-opting pagan festivals indicated a failure of Christianity.

What’s important is that non-religious basis of ethics, whether it’s rights, utilitarianism or the Kantian moral imperative (which have been developed by the religious as much as the non-religious) have replaced literal obedience to holy books.

And so what if Gordon Brown is personally religious? As long as people don’t assume that one or any religion is the only way to live a good life.

Miltant atheists attacked for generalisations

Tho Hobson writes in the Guardian that God knocking is on the increase but the criticisms levelled at religion by militant atheists are often crude and short-sighted.  Hobson lays into the likes of Christopher Hitchens arguing that:

“the critic of religious abuses must be specific, particular. He must focus on particular practices, particular institutions, and explain why they have a detrimental effect on society….But the militant atheist….has to insist that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always….Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges.”

The attacks from atheists have been coming thick and fast from aatheists both on the Guardian website and Richard Dawkin’s website where the article was reposted.

These reflect a certain protectiveness about atheisms big guns that are doing so much to make the non-religious heard but we mustn’t be afraid of self criticism. If we think religion needs to go then we’re in for a long and bloody fight and in some ways no different from those who want the whole world to be X religion, except of course the desired outcomes are different. There will be no winners. But Hobson is saying that perhaps we need to strive for a world in which both religion and atheism can co-exist, a goal that we can share with many religious folk.

That’s not the same as rollling over and being soft. As Hobson says: ”The critic of religious abuses must be specific, particular. He must focus on particular practices, particular institutions, and explain why they have a detrimental effect on society.” Homophobia. Mysogynism. Discrimination. Anti-science. All bad all to be fought without compromise but all things some/many religious progressives will join us in.

Britain’s new cultural divide is between those who have faith and those who do not

In today’s Guardian Stuart Jeffries writes that Britain’s new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not.Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark is quoted as saying that “You have a triangle with fundamentalist secularists in one corner, fundamentalist faith people in another, and then the intelligent, thinking liberals of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, baptism, methodism, other faiths – and, indeed, thinking atheists – in the other corner. ” says Slee. The other two groups are so vociferous because “[w]hen there was a cold war, we knew who the enemy was. Now it could be anybody. From this feeling of vulnerability comes hysteria.”

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian / ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension – greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. Read article here

Sharing ethical and moral values is more important than what we believe

Sunny Hundal (left) writes in the Guardian’s Comment is Free that a dividing line is continually being created between believers and non-believers which makes discussion very difficult.With religion becoming more prominent in Britain and in many cases the believers becoming more conservative, the only scenario that seems to be on offer is conflict between the believers and non-believers over political rights.

Instead he believes the dividing line should be over ethics and values. It should be between those believe in political, social and economic equality for all and those who don’t. Such a re-drawing of the map could include believers and non-believers in both camps. Read the article here

Humanists have a rich ethical outlook

AC Grayling (pictured) writes on the Guardian website how those who are not religious have available to them a rich ethical outlook, all the richer indeed for being the result of reflection as opposed to conditioning.

He states that “humanism is…about the value of things human. Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share.” Read full article

To think there is nothing to be learned from religion is arrogant

Theo Hobson (picture) writes, on the Guardian website, that philosopher Julian Baggini believes that dogmatic atheism is unattractive: “to think there is nothing to be learned from religion is extremely arrogant,” Baggini is quoted as saying. And he acknowledges the appeal of religion, even to a hardened atheist. Read posting