In a debate on socialist politics and religion, Christian socialist and regular contributor to DGS Steve Mowat looks at the attitude taken by Barack Obama and argues that the left should be a more welcoming milieu for those with religious belief. Secularist and humanist, Mina Penrose, replies for scientific rationalism.
Steve Mowat – Politics and Religion
“It is a mistake not to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the people, and so avoid joining a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic democracy… When we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum”. (Barack Obama, 2008).
I want to consider here religion in society and how religiosity amongst the population should be considered with seriousness by socialists. Obama observed that it would be foolish to ignore the influence of religion, whilst acknowledging faith, reason and politics operate in separate spheres.
On the other side of the Atlantic, in Scotland, the secularisation of society has occurred at a much more rapid pace than the United States. The number of regular church goers and committed religious people has diminished remarkably in recent times. However, I wish to argue here that religion in Scotland remains significant – albeit not in the traditional sense – and should be acknowledged by socialists as influencing public debate and voting intentions. Obama goes on to succinctly state;
“more fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religiosity has often inhibited us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms…imagine King’s “I Have a Dream” speech without reference to “all God’s children.” his summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and moved the nation to embrace a common destiny…
After all the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are also rooted in societal indifference and individual callousness – the desire of those at the top of the social ladder to maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost, as well as the despair and self-destructiveness among those at the bottom of the social ladder.”
The table below shows (at the time of publication) that Obama’s observation can be applied to the British situation. Indeed many social concerns are supported by a higher percentage of church goers than the general population in the UK.
Table 1 Support for Churches Opinion
| Topic | General Population % | Church Attendee % |
| Disarmament | 55 | 60 |
| Third World Problems | 74 | 83 |
| Unemployment | 45 | 56 |
| Ecology and Environment | 60 | 68 |
| Racial Discrimination | 65 | 75 |
| Government Policy | 34 | 42 |
Source: ~ Table adapted from Timms. 1992:73 and reproduced from Davie; Religion in Britain, Sine 1945
The table above shows that at the time of publication Church Attendees in fact supported political causes more traditionally associated with the political left and in larger proportion than the wider population. There are of course other causes which provoke traditional opposition amongst religious and socialist camps. The point is religion may affect political outlook. And political decision makers should be well aware of the implications of seeking exposure to a religious audience. Indeed members of the clergy have stated public support for political parties in the past, including Solidarity, The Scottish Socialist Party, Labour, the SNP, The Conservatives, and in America, Democrats and Republicans alike. What does this tell us? Returning to US President, Obama sounds a note of caution when talking about religion and politics;
“At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise…if God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base ones life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”
Indeed the major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism claim exclusive ownership of the knowledge to salvation. Thus the other religions, by the nature of the claim, are excluded from this truth. There are certain exclusive claims stemming from religious belief which completely exclude other points of view. How can this be reconciled with modern democratic practice and pluralism?
I would argue that religion tends to increase in significance when in defence of cultural identity, particularly in the presence of poverty and inequality.
Steve Bruce, the BBC’s primary commentator on Religious change in Britain and columnist for the Glasgow Herald states that religion diminishes in social significance except in two broad contexts…cultural defence and cultural transition. The obvious recent case would be the Evangelical/Presbyterian identity attached to Ian Paisleys Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). More locally in west Scotland the main opposition to the Sunday ferry crossing at Lewis was from Free Presbyterian campaigners, who believed they were defending a cultural way of life by opposing the crossing on Sunday. In recent elections there has also been a small but significant number of votes for the newly formed Christian Party in the Highlands of Scotland. Religiosity remains higher in the West Highlands of Scotland than in other regions, and support for church opinion on social issues ranging from abortion and homelessness to the environment and disarmament is traditionally higher (although relatively declining).
Obama summarises;
“Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square…Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, jr – indeed the majority of great reformers in American history – not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their cases. To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality…what our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”
I would argue a revived socialist movement should take Obama’s advice in this instance to welcome religious support on some of the greatest moral issues of our time when it is offered.
I would argue that our society needs a radical overhaul in how it thinks about morality in public life. Part of the challenge for the socialist movement is to redefine what morally acceptable practices in our society are.
Many conservatives in the past attempted to take the moral high ground. Recent years have witnessed pressures to reduce welfare benefits for the sick, and single mothers are lambasted in the press. Whilst at the same time accepted capitalist attitudes praised the immoral practice of bankers and CEOs of large corporations being paid millions of pounds in order to run their companies to the ground. This is while the list of homelessness in the Highlands for example soared by 300%. A recent study has found that for every £1 big bankers have earned recently, they have lost their corporations and the public purse £47. On the other hand hospital cleaners have saved £12 of additional costs for every £1 they are paid.
This is a political age also where world leaders can take unilateral military action against the wishes of the United Nations in Iraq, without consequence and wrecking the tenets of international diplomacy.
It is an age where rich nations line against the poor at the Copenhagen climate summit, attempting to impose unfair carbon emission deals and capitalist World Bank control on aid, forcing the nations of Africa into a defensive coalition and weakening further the role of the United Nations.
This is an age where the loan books of the Royal Bank of Scotland have been allowed to dwarf those of the UK at £2 Trillion, and a company can take the entire nation of Liberia to court for repayment of a 1970’s loan with interest; while the majority its own people cannot even afford shoes for their own feet.
There are many general moral issues where the socialist movement and those with traditional religious values, of various faiths, can read from the same hymn sheet, according to Timms and Davies table. Of course there are differences in other areas, the right of a woman to plan her own family is one which springs to mind, euthanasia is another and issues such as these are of central importance.
I would also argue that general public welfare and diversity of opinion is more important that religious specific views of a specific faith, as Obama does. But in general I think that the values of religion can be used to inspire a vision for the future, if it is used in the proper context, such as that achieved by Martin Luther King. King was hero of the movement for democracy, justice – and a religious man too.
It is wise, surely, to embrace those with religious views who share the socialist vision that many of the world’s problems are based on societal indifference, callousness, poverty and racism.
The socialist movement in Scotland should be shouting the loudest as our society attempts to redefine what are morally acceptable social standards, and how these should be part of the fabric of public life.
Mina Penrose – Socialists should welcome the religious, but oppose reactionary religion
| “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” |
| Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843) |
| “One can worship the head of a dead fish. All that one requires is faith.” Japanese Proverb favoured by Trotsky |
| This isn’t a really a debate piece with the position that Steve Mowat sets out above. Quite frankly I agree with the thrust of much of what Steve argues. The socialist movement should understand that not every religionist is a patriarchal, misogynist, homophobic, creationist neo-con and that many people of faith have come to socially progressive views through their religion. He is right in pointing out that part of Obama’s success in being elected President was in starting to identify concerns of the religious community with progressive issues where previously that field had been left to the socially conservative right. We share our concerns for social justice, against unjust and immoral wars, and for the environment, with many people of faith. |
| Further, Steve’s argument that the left should not set up artificial barriers to people of faith joining our movement is surely an unassailable one? How can we possibly hope to win the kind of majority needed to carry out a socialist transformation of society without taking significant numbers of people who currently hold some form of religious belief with us? It is to the credit of DGS online magazine that both a Christian socialist and a scientific rationalist such as myself can write for it, and find broad areas of agreement. |
| My contribution to this debate isn’t so much a “hold on a minute, Steve’s got this wrong” as a “Steve’s broadly right, but…” In other words, it’s a cautionary note that while agreeing we should seek support from people of faith on issues of common agreement, we should not therefore capitulate to the privileging of faith based institutions by capitalist society. It says that in seeking to win over people of faith we need not compromise on our fundamental core belief in a secular society and in a full range of rights for women and the gay community. And it argues that in making sure we don’t place unnecessary obstacles in the way of religious people feeling part of our movement, we do not need to assume a dubious cultural relativism that says scientific rationalism and empirical science are simply a belief system like any other and have no greater claim to value than faith based claims. |
| Let’s begin with the last point first |
| Science and Morality |
| You are reading this on the internet. If you get bored with it you can google almost anything else that takes your fancy and have instant access to information or views on it from a number of sources around the world. |
| Glance around your home. Electric or Gas cooker? Washing machine? Tumble drier? Vacuum cleaner? Non-stick pans? Television? Stereo and DVD’s? Double glazing, perhaps. |
| Now look out of your window. If it’s evening the streetlights will be on. If you wish to go out to the cinema, shops or theatre you will be able to travel there speedily in a motorised vehicle on tarmac roads. Maybe you’ll pass your local hospital where many dozens of people right now will be successfully being treated for conditions that would have been fatal or debilitating only decades ago. Above in the night sky, satellites and space stations orbit the earth allowing global communications and allowing us to see further and deeper into the universe than Galileo would ever have dreamt possible. Perhaps if it’s a cloudless evening and the right time of the month you’ll be able to see the moon where members of your own species, the fifth African ape, homo sapiens, have already stood. |
| While it is statistically beyond doubt that some of the human beings involved in creating these things had religious belief, religious belief had nothing to with their creation. Faith creates nothing but itself, and the psychology and belief system required to sustain it. All of the advances in technology, in medicine and science we take for granted are a result and powerful vindication of the scientific method and its practical application. To compare the scientific world view – which rigorously tests and retests its theories about the world experimentally against objective reality – with any world view based on acceptance of textual doctrine or revealed faith is to indulge either in modern sophistry or self deception or both. |
| But hold on a minute, the educated person of faith might point out that science and technology are morally neutral; that as well as all of the wonders and conveniences listed above, science also gave us the atomic bomb and global warming. |
| Well, of course. It takes more than gas or machine guns to make a Holocaust. People make scientific advances using the empirical method. How we decide to use those advances is a human decision; political, social and moral. What is no longer tenable however, from a scientific or rational point of view, is the notion that religion or religious people have any greater qualification or right than the rest of us to make those moral decisions. The idea that morality is derived from a divinely given sense of right or wrong, or that we should behave in such and such a way because of a doctrinal text or because an allegedly divine being some of us may believe in tells us to’ is not only quaint and ridiculous (Kant disposed of the notion that morality comes from a divine source four human lifetimes ago, instead showing it was grounded in our ability to reason), but it has also been shown by modern evolutionary science to have a wholly different source. |
| Surely the most startling scientific finding of our modern age (and the reason why some religionists hate people like Richard Dawkins with a fervour) is the discovery that our universal moral sense as a human species, although interpreted differently within different cultures and historical environments, is a product of the evolutionary development of our brains, and that the sense of religiosity (whether leading to religious belief in a given individual or not) is strongly correlated with certain gene combinations. |
| Biological science is in the process of explaining the innate roots of religiosity in the ability of our simian brains to construct narratives on the basis of incomplete information – a ‘blessed misfiring’ as Dawkins has called it – of an evolutionary adaptive function of the human brain. Social science has explained how religion is a function of culture and environment, the most famous example being Marx’s full quote on religion as opiate at the head of my piece. And psychology has explained why fear of failure and of our own mortality causes the human psyche to seek exterior powers in our lives and the hope of life beyond death. Science can provide an explanation for religion, but religion explains nothing satisfactorily, even in terms of its own moral strictures. |
| Take the following statements: |
| · Do unto others as you would be done by |
| · Do not steal |
| · Do not kill |
| · Be compassionate, and forgive the transgressions of others |
| One can consider these statements to be either morally admirable, or moral categorical imperatives, whether one is religious or not. Cultures all over the world all have some recognisable variant of these moral rules. Secularists and atheists generally would agree with these foundation stones of a decent society. No belief in deities – all powerful or otherwise – or a resurrection or a soul or an afterlife is required. Religious belief is not logically or factually correlated with moral behaviour or attitudes and is in no ways necessary to morality. It is a statistical fact – inevitable given the bell curve of Darwinian population thinking that many religious people are good and moral people – and many religious people fall far short of what most of us would consider good ethical behaviour. Similiarly you will find both saints and shits in the secular and atheist community. |
| Ethics can survive and thrive without religion. Society, however, would not survive long without scientific rationalism before descending back into medieval chaos and darkness. |
| And, of course, scientific rationalism is not a closed door to anyone, whether they hold religious beliefs or not. |
| How far should socialists go in welcoming believers? |
| I think I would be with Stephen Mowat on this question and say pretty far. Most religious people attracted to the progressive left are attracted because they believe in social justice, in wealth redistribution and helping the poor and vulnerable. They will probably also tend to be anti-militarist and anti-war and pro-peace. They may however, carry some reactionary baggage from their religion, such as opposition to abortion, homophobia, support for religious indoctrination in schools and so on (although it should be pointed out that there are plenty of non-religious people who oppose women’s rights and hold anti-gay prejudices). |
| The proper attitude of the progressive socialist movement is to take and encourage people as we find them on the basis of the things they agree with us on, and be prepared to tolerate differences of opinion in the short to medium term while concentrating on winning the intellectual argument on the other issues in the longer term. In the past I’ve come across good people who regarded themselves as solid socialists but initially – through a cultural or religious background – had a pretty dodgy attitude on things like women’s rights and homosexuality. Often these are individuals who have been exposed to half truths and very bad arguments and my experience is that through discussion, their instinct to opposing oppression and a building a fairer society can be widened to include the very socio-sexual sphere that their upbringing has taught them to regard as ‘sinful’ or abnormal. |
| Taking a strong position on universal human rights, and consequently the rights of equality that can only be guaranteed in a secular society i.e. freedom and equality of belief before the law, and the rights of women and gay people, need not prevent us from embracing members of the religious community who want to stand with us on fighting illegal wars, poverty, racism and nuclear weapons. Similiarly, defending the right of religious individuals and communities to their belief systems and from bigotry, racism and prejudice should not prevent us from being critical of religious communities and practices when those practices conflict with the values of enlightenment, democracy, equality, and universal human rights. |
| There seems to be an inexplicable inability for some on the left, for instance, to understand that there is no moral or political contradiction in secular progressives like Richard Dawkins opposing the Iraq war and stereotyping of the Muslim community while criticising aspects of Islam in the same way he criticises the other two great Abrahamic religions – Judaism and Christianity. |
| Yet secular humanists, atheists, Marxists and scientific rationalists are all supposed to tiptoe around religion. Criticising aspects of Judaism, Catholicism or Islam leads to accusations of anti-semitism, Islamophobia or sectarianism in Scotland and elsewhere. |
| Its drivel, of course, but an inevitable consequence of the narratives of cultural relativism and social constructivism creeping into socialist and Marxist thinking via the soft sciences in academia over the last thirty years. |
| There is no contradiction between defending someone’s right to religious belief, provided that belief does not negatively impact on the rights of another person, and defending the rights of persons to disagree with the religious belief and to act contrary to it. Socialists in the Western Isles in recent years, for instance, both under the guise of Solidarity and the SSP, supported the ending of the religiously inspired ban on Sunday Ferry sailings while defending the rights of Sabbatarian Calmac workers to refuse to work on a Sunday. |
| The ‘privileging’ of religion |
| What the progressive socialist movement must never do, however, is make concessions of policy and principle to appease religious groups or to appease wider prejudice amongst a population that includes religious strands. |
| For instance, the left in Scotland, particularly the West of Scotland, has traditionally been conspicuous in its silence over the shameful segregation in public schooling that separates young people living in the same communities into different primary and secondary schools on the basis of their parent’s religious beliefs, and which enshrines religious indoctrination of the protestant/Presbyterian variety in so-called ‘non-denominational’ schools, and religious indoctrination into Roman Catholicism in so-called ‘faith’ schools. |
| (should anyone be in doubt, even in these slightly more enlightened times, when Religious Education has been replaced by Religious and Moral Education and is supposed to include elements of wider philosophy, that schools are still used to normalise and promote certain forms of religious belief in a privileged way, I suggest they get hold of the door stopper ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ that has been provided as a guide to what should be taught from this year. Check out the guidance for the teaching for RME in both faith and non-denominational schools.) |
| The failure of politicians historically to challenge this abuse of a child’s right to be educated with her peers. and to be taught how to think – critically and analytically – not what to think is due to three main factors: |
| · The mistaken notion, partially based on the patriarchal notion of children as property, that there is such a thing as a Catholic child, or a Protestant child (or for that matter a Jewish or Hindu or Muslim child) when there only children with Catholic or Protestant or Muslim parents. There is no gene for particular religious variants and young children have not yet developed enough experience of life to develop particular religious affiliation without conscious cultural and educational interference. |
| · The fear of politicians that religious institutional leaders, who have come to see the use of taxpayers money to provide just such educational interference in their favour as some sort of civil right, would mount a campaign amongst their flock if this social segregation and intellectual child abuse were to be challenged, thus costing the politicians votes |
| · The continued privileging of religion in modern society – as much a feudal anachronism as the Monarchy or the House of Lords. If I demanded that my children should only go to a Marxist school with other ‘Marxist’ children and be educated away from those ‘Keynesian’ children next door, I’d be laughed out of court, and rightly so. But somehow the religious can make such claims and no-one bats an eyelid. |
| I have no doubt that, like the ban on smoking in public places, and the abolition of the homophobic Section 2, the ending of faith schools would elicit frothing public opposition from the irrational and the self interested – and from many decent working class people conned by their religious leaders into thinking their identity was being attacked. I also have no doubt that if their abolition were enacted and all children were henceforth educated together at a local, genuinely comprehensive and non-denominational school, it would immediately become hugely popular and no-one in politics would ever seriously think about repealing it, anymore than we would seriously think about going back to smoke filled pubs or a state of affairs where 10% of the population had their sexuality officially seen as abnormal. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not – the privileging of religion by society, by politicians and the media, continues relatively unchallenged. |
| It is that continued privileging of religion by society, and religion’s use of that privilege to continue to promote a reactionary social agenda that means the socialist movement, while welcoming and listening to people of faith, cannot extend a blank cheque to them. I have given one local example of the privileged, reactionary face of religion above but such examples could be multiplied across the globe. |
| If readers are interested in reading further about contemporary examples of the privileged and reactionary side of religion I would recommend they click on the link at the bottom of this page. And if you haven’t already read them Richard Dawkins The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchen’s God is not Great contain many examples. |
| Steve Mowat is right, but we need to understand that religion is a Janus. Yes, as Marx says, religion is often ‘the sigh of the oppressed’ – and as such we should welcome those who yearn for a better world and convince them that world needs to be built here on Earth rather than be projected as an idealised heaven. But we also need to understand that there is much that is wrong, reactionary, even medievalist, about religion and to oppose those aspects of it which continue to hold the development of society back. |
| There are still too many rotting heads of dead fish being worshipped in all the corners of this earth. |
| http://www.johannhari.com/2010/03/19/the-pope-the-prophet-and-the-religious-support-for-evil |
I read Steve and Mina’s duel on “Politics & Religion” but I didn’t get much further forward. For example, on page 1, the table on “Support for Churches Opinion” reminded me of the man who had an alcohol problem because the pub was shut.
I see it as having two aspects. First, should we believe in religion? I’ve had a good look at it and just can’t manage it. I’ve discussed it with theologians who advised me to try harder but I’m happy as I am, people should be happy in their beliefs.
The other point is, “Should we work with religious people?” It would have been difficult for socialists in South Africa to have refused to work with Desmond Tutu and Trevor Huddleston. When I joined I wasn’t asked what I believed. But should I have been?
That depends on what kind of party we are. Are we like the Labour Party where you pay a tiny sub and don’t worry the leadership?
Or are we one of these “vanguard” parties who set exams for applicants? The joke is that only the failures are allowed in.
Are we not a party of active socialists doing their best for the party? Also, while an intimate knowledge of socialist theory cannot be a condition of membership, members have a duty to educate themselves in the theory and practice of fighting for socialism.
What I’d say to Geoff is that Mina and Steve’s debate here is happily discursive, rather than polemical.
I think they are both quietly tiptoeing towards a consensus that religion is something we should discuss, rather than not, that we welcome people of faith without being beholden to their ideas, and that as socialists we have a duty to critically examine the impact of religion on society in both its positive and negative sides.
As a Dawkininst atheist I think the latter probably outweighs the former, but I would not want to be part of a movement that could not welcome religious people who want to fight for a better world into our ranks.
These two excellent articles on politics and religion demonstrate how diversity in opinion can enrich our understanding of the human condition. I would agree with Steve Arnott’s comments whilst Geoff Skeets leaves me rather puzzled. I have to say that as a lover of irony, I think the ‘rotting heads of dead fish’ invokes a powerful image. I wonder if that’s allowed in the Western Isles.
There was a time when I would have favoured a hard line anti-theological position but the history of the post soviet period demonstrates that this is probably counter-productive. Moreover religion is a fascinating subject from the duality of the chief and the medicine man, to the synthesis of god and king in Pharaohs and emperors. Of no less importance is the way in which monotheism and patriarchy are related and seem to be covariant over time.
In many ways I see religion as an alternative form of politics and I see the Enlightenment as watershed in the separation of the two but not a complete separation because bourgeois modernity disappoints and disillusions. The post modern human may well be a devout monotheist, a pagan and a believer in magic, all at the same time.
Interesting points Joanne – and I wouldn’t argue with them. But surely the point is to move beyond post modernity…
I think the aim is to move beyond the post modernist’s dilemma which means necessarily a post soviet renaissance of the socialist perspective. In the process though we need to replace old dogma with a resurgence of dialectic materialism, combine this with modern Darwinism, embrace environmentalism and develop a theory of the person. Religion as a reflection of the human condition, will need to be studied not repressed.
‘For instance, the left in Scotland, particularly the West of Scotland, has traditionally been conspicuous in its silence over the shameful segregation in public schooling that separates young people living in the same communities into different primary and secondary schools on the basis of their parent’s religious beliefs, and which enshrines religious indoctrination of the protestant/Presbyterian variety in so-called ‘non-denominational’ schools, and religious indoctrination into Roman Catholicism in so-called ‘faith’ schools.’
I’m glad to see Mina raising this issue in the course of this discussion. Intellectual child abuse of this type is largely ignored or glossed over on the left. All children should have the right to be educated alongside their peers regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, and to be taught how to think for themselves, not what to think.
I think politicians of all stripes have traditionally been frightened of grappling with this issue, particularly in the West of Scotland, because of the perceived clout of the vested interests, i.e. the churches, the two tribes. However, when the Greens adopted a policy of united, non-faith based education, it didn’t stop Patrick Harvie being elected on the list in Glasgow at the list Holyrood election, despite vocal and well publicised condemnation from the catholic church in particular.
Perhaps the masses no longer trot out to kirk/chapel and blindly vote the way their minister/priest indicates?
The impact of religion on society varies greatly depending on location. It is indeed correct to welcome people of religious persuasion when they offer assistance to the socialist movement. Religion impacts on social life in many societies of the world to the point where it is seen to represent the virtues of an entire nation. It is used as a vehicle for national sentiment, allows prejudices to form and can create division, encourage corruption and excuse turning a blind eye to poverty. This was perhaps true in Europe before the reformation. It is also used in the Southern hemisphere from Peru to Indonesia to insulate hearts and minds against the ravages of poverty and utter destitution.
Religious ideas can perhaps be used to promote responsible behavior a good moral guide for society. An example might be Islamic banks notorious dislike for excessive credit…perhaps a comparative study of Islamic and western banks would yield valuable information for legislative (rather than religious) reform of the British banking system.
The point I am making here is that religion is a valuable cultural asset and to understand its social function is to arm ourselves with greater understanding of the human experience, both good or bad. Whilst any such study should not hesitate to warn of the dangers of excessive religious influence in public life (with appropriate examples).
I would not argue that public policy be based on religious ideas (as it is in some countries)…in fact I stand absolutely against that, as a Marxist I believe that most social, and cultural conflicts have their roots in material inequality. Religion can be used as an unhelpful tool of power which plays on human tribal instincts, in times of cultural defense or of economic transitions.
At a fundamental level I think every human being needs to believe in something, whether its, Buddhism, Christianity, or Humanism. In contemporary Scotland we should welcome support from those who claim a religion into our ranks…indeed where would South Africa and the USA be without the likes of Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King.
We should use cultural resources available to understand our own society. But at all costs we need to be aware that public life remain outside the “exclusive” realm of religious doctrine. Therein lies a danger, but to broadly accept people with religious belief into a political movement is acceptable, and to a point should be encouraged.
Here we go again, Steve. I agree with a lot of what you say, but when you say ‘At a fundamental level I think every human being needs to believe in something, whether its, Buddhism, Christianity, or Humanism’ I think you need to be clear whether you are being descriptive or prescriptive.
At a descriptive level you are probably right. Neuroscience and psychology have pretty conclusively shown that it is part of human nature to want or need to believe in something. At a prescriptive level however, a rationalist would point out that just because we want or need to believe in something doesn’t mean to say we SHOULD believe in it. If belief were, in and of itself, a desirable thing, then we might as well all believe whatever we please – regardless of concrete realities.
Surely those things we choose to believe, either as an individual or as a society, should have some basis of evidence, reason or argument behind them. Blind faith – either secular or religious – has probably killed more people in human history than anything outside of preventable disease and hunger
Thanks Mina. Descriptive. I would not ever say that every human being must believe in something. It’s my personal observation of human nature. Glad we agree on that.
I noticed in some societies it is necessary to have a religion of some kind…that is prescriptive and its wrong. I believe its fundamentally wrong to have society based on that principle, as much as it’s fundamentally wrong to discourage religious belief in individuals, because true democracy will always allow for that. Some of my opinions on this subject continue to develop as I experience life’s wonders.
As a fellow socialist I also agree with you that a great human strength lies in our ability to think rationally and scientifically; this is important in public life when we need to tackle the practical problems of wealth distribution and the alleviation of poverty.
I would argue however that most instances of human conflict are caused by disease and hunger…some examples of this include Europe in the mid twentieth century….hyper inflation and excessive debt repayments starved the Nation of Germany in the 1920s. This was the cause of trouble.
The starving masses of Russia could take no more poverty at the turn of the last century, war killed its young men and starved the rest…they rose up in revolt….
In the 1800′s when the masses of France could no longer afford a loaf of bread they turned on their rulers (it was greed cause dinpart by Religious rulers granted)…and we had the French revolution…
The American civil war was caused when laws in the North threatened to embolden slaves in the South thus destroying the economic system propping up sugar plantations and other exploitative businesses….The American war of independence was triggered when the King of England insisted on an unfair tax system and people could no longer make a reasonable living…
ten years ago in Indonesia when hyper inflation threatened to engulf the country whole shopping malls were burned to the ground with a particular ethnic group of people as the targets, until change came…raping, pillaging, looting, burning because people were scared they would not be able to eat….
Just before the modern world financial system collapsed the two tallest symbols of Capitalist power crumpled to the ground in New York…thousands had their lives taken by a group of people in an impoverished nation…
When the people of North Korea are starved an oppressed there is Sabre rattling…..when the people of Chad cannot get 100% on their 50p hour wage, the Unions take to the streets and civil war looms…
…I simply do not buy the fact that religion causes more war than poverty. In my opinion poverty is the biggest evil. Destitution is. Starvation is. Slum housing is. Lack of health care is. Disease is. I would argue this is more of a basis for human conflict that religion.
Religion can be a galvanizing force in such conflict, it gives people a sense of “certainty” in times of struggle and change, in times of cultural defense. A lot of the worlds religions claim the absolute truth…and therein is the flaw…and its no accident that the big religions are by and large confined to specific cultural groups (for want of a better description)…I respect your opinion and read it with interest….I agree with the thrust of it that to realize the power of rational human ability is the point…..and to defend that principle (and the principles of toleration) we need to guard against vested interests of specific religions….believe me sister I see it and experience it every day at the moment, I hear what your saying.
I honestly believe that in a truly prosperous world based on the principles of fairness, solidarity, responsibility, wealth distribution and above all else freedom from poverty that major conflicts would be resigned to the history books…(poverty is the driving force for human conflict) and incidentally I also think religion would decline in general as it has done in Scotland as a general rule. I’m writing another piece on religious influence on public life at the moment, based on recent experiences. There are dangers, and am appalled at some things I have experienced, delighted by other things. I hope it comes together for a good article if it’s allowed publication on DGS. I hope you’ll find it of interest.
Thanks for your comments Mina…best wishes sister.
Well, I am a Peruvian girl and my opinion is that this very interesting debate, I respect and have many things for sure, maybe it uses religion to keep people happy with your reality “poverty”, but to my faith is something that is within each person, I am a Catholic but I go to church every Sunday and might not pray every day: $ (although I try), maybe I’m not a good Catholic, but my faith is strong and love God, I’m not a fan of religion but I feel in my heart that someone cares about me and when I feel bad that comforts me, perhaps the only faith in everyone, do not need a religion, I have many friends from different religions and I have learned that religion is not he who prays most or who goes to Mass every day, maybe these people are the most hypocritical, that’s horrible but true, that is why the true religion for me we took each one from within, and maybe faith becomes stronger throughout life, only there to experience it to understand, then it’s best to live in peace with oneself and respect the ideas of others, but these days people cling to any religion to forget the terrible society around them, full of people selfish and unfeeling, sad but true, I hope everyone had more faith in something or someone to believe that one day this world could improve, so maybe we can help those who most need without putting at stake religion or politics.
Maybe you should go to the poorest places in order to understand them better;)
I liked this article interesting, but very extensive.
Have a great day!
besitos:))
This has been a very good debate.
There’s an excellent discussion taking place on the Richard Dawkins website at the moment on female genetic mutiliation (you have to sign in as a site user to participate but worth while
For the record, it was my christian faith that led me to socialism. I see socialism as putting christianity into practice.
I believe it was Keir Hardie who explained how christianity and socialism could stand together by explaining that socialism believed in the ‘brotherhood of mankind’ and christianity believed in the ‘ brotherhood of mankind as well as the fatherhood of God.’
In Keir Hardie’s day the women were of course left at home whilst the “brotherhood” dissolved into the usual sibling rivalry. The addition of the father god or was it the godfather, reflects a very male centric society. But didn’t some versions of the religion have a mother of god?
Hi Joanne
I think you are missing the point of my comment. If you look in to what I am saying, I think you’ll see that socialist ideas run all through the bible:
“The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” Luke 3:11
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” Acts 2:44-45
I could go on, bit the point should be clear – most of christianity would fit perfectly well in a socialist manifesto!
A good case can be made for ‘socialist’ ideas being found in the Bible. But an equally good case could be made for quite nasty ideas i.e. God’s constant injunctions in the Old Testament to ethnically cleanse whole tribes, the racism, mysoginy and homophobia. The demand that Isaac should prepare his own son as a ‘burnt offering’.
Lot allowing a group of strangers to gang rape his daughters seems hardly christian or socialist, but its there.
I’m glad if his christianity has led lewis to socialism, but ultimately we cannot base our ideas on old desert texts. As divisions on all religions show they are very open to interpretation.
Sorry folks – factual correction to my own previous post – too much wine. It was, according to the Bible, Abraham who offered his son Isaac as a burnt offering to God after hearing God’s voice instructing him to do so. God stops Abraham before he burns his son to death, but the point is he was willing to obey God and carry the sacrifice through, and therefore blessed.
Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’ refers to Judaism, Islam and Christianity all as ‘Abrahamic’ religions because they trace the provenance of their sacred texts back to Abraham. Atheists note that commonality here is unthinking submission to God’s will.
That said I want to apologise to lewis if I seemed a bit dismissive earlier. I think it’s very important that people like lewis feel welcome in our movement, and if he/she has come to that via his/her Christianity then – hallelujah, as Leonard Cohen might say. When I was young and was sent to church they did go on about the meek inheriting, and Jesus caring about the poor a lot more than they did about the rather disturbing stuff than runs through the Old Testament.
You are of course spot on in your assessment of ‘Abrahamic’ religions but I think many leftward leaning Christians observe a parallel between their religious beliefs and socialism. I note that Lewis quotes Luke’s gospel and Acts which possibly distil the ideas of the early Christian movement, rather than the official doctrine of the established church.
Before becoming a widespread religion however, pagan influences were brought to bare and then the traditional Jewish concepts were re-emphasised in the Reformation. It’s possible that the early Christians were in fact leftist radicals because this would be consistent dialectically within the material conditions of Roman occupied Palestine.
Hi Mina P
I appreciate your comments. While I accept that some oof the old testament is ‘chilling’, the fundamental doctrines and beliefs of Christianity are laid out in the new testament which it would be unfair to attack as showing racism and mysoginy. Indeed, women were given a far greater role in the early church than had been the case in jewish society (and far greater than most people today really understand) and Paul famously took a stand against racism with his ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ speech. As for homophobia, as you call it, the new testament condemns all categories of sexual acts outside a faithful marriage between a husband and a wife, while making it clear that ‘God loves the sinner while hating the sin’. The church welcomes any sinner who wishes to repent and be forgiven. I don’t accept that is ‘homophobia’ since no one is ‘discriminated’ against.
Here Lewis is big chasm between our ‘parallel tracks’. Some people are classed as sinners and treated differently, when their behaviour may be entirely legal and considered by church outsiders as perfectly moral. If they do not wish to repent then the church has the option to ostracise such people and sometimes does so when it has a powerful position in the community.
Hi Joane
Sorry if I have made myself unclear. No-one is treated differently for being sinners since ALL are sinners in some way or another! However, the Church is made up of sinners who are sorry for their sinful nature and wish to try their best to their lives according to biblical principles. Whether the behaviour is regarded by wider society as legal or moral is irrelevant as the Church takes its standards from the bible and not society.
As for the ‘big chasm’ between us, the left is notorious for being divided over issues that appear big chasms. I believe one of the lessons we are learning is that where we agree with some other groups on the majority of big issues, we should focus on those areas we agree on and seek to work together where we can. I would ask that the same approach be taken with those on the left who find themselves in politics as a result of their religious convictions. Let us march together against poverty, illegal wars, nuclear weapons etc and agree to disagree on matters such as whether abortion kills innocent human life, or over what sexual behaviour should be viewed as appropriate.
Sorry – should say,
“…and wish to try their best to live their lives according to biblical principles.”
Cheers
The logic of no discrimination against sinners on the basis of universal sin could be challenged on the grounds that not everyone believes in such notions. However, I’m wary that a new issue of the magazine is due out and this particular discussion must be closed soon. Gay rights and religion have a difficult coexistence, especially when this cocktail results in actual assaults or self-harm, which I’m sure you would not wish to condone.
I agree that the religious and non-religious should march together against poverty, illegal wars, nuclear weapons etc. Whether one believes in a deity or not should be irrelevant. I think we start with something like the DGS founding statement and if we agree with that, then there isn’t a problem. Tolerance has to work both ways whilst we remain on the grounds of rational debate. No book on the planet proves or disproves the existence of God one way or the other.