Definitely too many posts on religion, I’ll have to change subject, won’t I?
I’ve been listening to “John Humphrys in search of God” (although not the extended interviews as I couldn’t access the media files).
I must say he wasn’t very original and sounded a bit slow really. I quite liked some of the answers given, but really, God’s existence is not something you can probe like Government policies. However, most of the ‘objections’ to God echo the arguments made by my favourite devout atheists Grayling and Dawkins and many others.
1. The Literal reading: taking the Bible or the Qu’ran or other 'sacred' texts as the word of God means that God communicated with a prophet/s and they wrote it down. The text is therefore filtered by a specific historical and social context. After all, for a text to be understood it needs to refer to a recognisable cultural and historical context. An altogether different thing is to interpret a text literally which is a relatively recent development. Of course, the Middle Ages were rife with allegorical, symbolical and philosophical interpretations, however, even before and after, to take the word literally, meant depriving the text of meaning. Most texts, especially if well written, have multiple meanings. To interpret texts literally means to stop at the plot and forget the substance, what the author is trying to tell you and why he/she is telling you in that particular way. The plot is a device, nothing more. Good literature, such as in Homer, Plato, Shakespeare, Dante and so on, has several levels of meaning and uses a plot to communicate with the readers. Dante did not go through Hell, Purgatory and Paradise while still alive, and nobody ever thought he did. It is quite interesting that these new movements of people who read the Bible literally are springing up a bit all over (although when I tell religious friends in Italy that creationists believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they laugh out loud). A lot has to do with technology; we live in an era where the texts are available online to all, but not necessarily the commentaries and explanations. Are people taught how to read a text these days?
Leaving that aside, one thing is to allow people to believe in their religion's dogmas and so on, quite another is to accept 'creationism' which is not a dogma but a flawed reading of the Bible. This is not freedom of expression or thought, it's simply ignorance and some sort of reaction against 'scientific atheism/secularism' present in our society. Science should tell us how, religion should tell us why. There is no conflict really.
2. God existence cannot be proven: nor can it be disproved for that matter. However, the question doesn’t make much sense. As I argued before, you cannot X-ray God. You cannot apply the laws of physics onto metaphysics or transcendent reality. One who is finite and mortal cannot prove anything about eternity and immortality. The point is not, as Humphrys argues, that it’s ‘blind faith’, it’s humility. It’s the awareness of being part of createdness, of belonging to the physical world (with a window onto the metaphysical one). Blind faith is to believe something that has been proven wrong about the physical world.
Some say that faith is a psychological need, but what is this obsession with ‘scientific’ categories and labels if not a psychological need? Isn't it a clear manifestation of obtuse people appealing to a distorted idea of science to cover up their sense of inadequacy? ;)
3. Why does God allow evil? You cannot have free will without evil. This is really what we are free to choose from in this life: between good and evil. Nevertheless, the point is again that we cannot know, we can only accept our responsibilities and work with God ‘in the work of creation’ as Jonathan Sacks put it, ‘make a channel for God’s action to come through into the situation’ in the words of Rowan Williams. Or, in the words of a wise man who was once asked how he would explain Auschwitz, “hell! I can’t explain how a can opener works” (Woody Allen)
Perhaps we think a bit too much of ourselves …
20 November 2006
BA, bad taste & discrimination
BA in their "infinite wisdom" decided to ban one of their employees from wearing a cross on her necklace. According to their statement:
What they seem to object to is not the religious symbol per se rather the jewellery. However, whilst I could agree that ostentatious jewellery could be off putting to the public (almost as much as those ridiculous uniforms and silly hats), a small cross on a necklace is hardly bad taste. Besides, one can't help thinking that this policy has originated from some insane commitment to political correctness. Interestingly, BA said that hijabs and bangles could be worn
This is quite frankly absurd but I expect no less from a company that, as I discovered recently, cancels your return flight if you miss your out-flight and tells you nothing about it at any time. That's customer care for you, no wonder they treat employees with no respect.
That aside, BA's rules on uniforms are discriminatory and inconsistent. Although they deny that they object to the wearing of a cross because it might cause offence to people from other faiths, it is an interesting coincidence that the employee had just undergone training on respecting and understanding other people's beliefs when she was asked to remove the cross. (Another inconsistent policy, respect only for customers not staff) So, if the rationale for the uniform regulation was religious symbolism, then they should apply the same logic to all employees wearing religious dress, which they don't. On the other hand, if their objection is based on taste or 'uniformity' (which is generally the rationale behind a uniform policy), they should still apply it across the board. I remember in the 1980's the 'young and hip' wore crosses all over, in their earrings, bracelets, even tatooes. They meant nothing, except maybe a tendency to listen to Madonna, Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet. This might not apply anymore, however symbols do change meaning over time and are often adopted by other groups who ascribe to them new meanings (like white rappers taking up the way of dressing made famous by black rappers). The 1980s 'pop' cross has gone while religious symbols are on the rise. After all, it was Madonna who offended some Jewish groups for using tefillin in one of her videos. I have no idea what message, if any, she was trying to convey, except perhaps bad taste. Her wearing of tefillin can hardly be seen as religious, despite her practise of kabbalah. Too many assumptions are made about religious symbols and about the people wearing them. They might mean something completely different!
British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform...British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban. This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross.
What they seem to object to is not the religious symbol per se rather the jewellery. However, whilst I could agree that ostentatious jewellery could be off putting to the public (almost as much as those ridiculous uniforms and silly hats), a small cross on a necklace is hardly bad taste. Besides, one can't help thinking that this policy has originated from some insane commitment to political correctness. Interestingly, BA said that hijabs and bangles could be worn
as it is not practical for staff to conceal them beneath their uniforms.
This is quite frankly absurd but I expect no less from a company that, as I discovered recently, cancels your return flight if you miss your out-flight and tells you nothing about it at any time. That's customer care for you, no wonder they treat employees with no respect.
That aside, BA's rules on uniforms are discriminatory and inconsistent. Although they deny that they object to the wearing of a cross because it might cause offence to people from other faiths, it is an interesting coincidence that the employee had just undergone training on respecting and understanding other people's beliefs when she was asked to remove the cross. (Another inconsistent policy, respect only for customers not staff) So, if the rationale for the uniform regulation was religious symbolism, then they should apply the same logic to all employees wearing religious dress, which they don't. On the other hand, if their objection is based on taste or 'uniformity' (which is generally the rationale behind a uniform policy), they should still apply it across the board. I remember in the 1980's the 'young and hip' wore crosses all over, in their earrings, bracelets, even tatooes. They meant nothing, except maybe a tendency to listen to Madonna, Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet. This might not apply anymore, however symbols do change meaning over time and are often adopted by other groups who ascribe to them new meanings (like white rappers taking up the way of dressing made famous by black rappers). The 1980s 'pop' cross has gone while religious symbols are on the rise. After all, it was Madonna who offended some Jewish groups for using tefillin in one of her videos. I have no idea what message, if any, she was trying to convey, except perhaps bad taste. Her wearing of tefillin can hardly be seen as religious, despite her practise of kabbalah. Too many assumptions are made about religious symbols and about the people wearing them. They might mean something completely different!
15 November 2006
Theo-cons Part 2 - in response to Joe Otten
1. “My first query is what your complaint with the "theo-cons" is”
I’m afraid I thought it was quite clear when I said that the ‘battle’ is not between religious and non-religious but between liberal and illiberal. Why this question? It feels a bit like being told that if one is religious one should have quite a bit in common with the theo-cons. Anyway, aside from their insane obsession with sexual morality, what I mainly object to is their imposition of their understanding of faith that leaves no free will to choose between different faiths or none at all.
2. “Blaming religion for abuses done in its name is no more absurd than crediting it for good work done in its name.”
No, the clue is in ‘abuse’, which means wrong or improper use.
3. “The idea that values come from religion is a religious idea, and not one that can be taken for granted”
I haven’t come across any document that would evidence otherwise. The point I was making was cultural: the ideas of liberty and equality have found a place in religion (customs and thought) and develop from there. Where ethics come from is, I agree, irrelevant. I believe our sense of justice reflects God in the world (more on this later, in another post!). But you don’t need to be religious to be ethical and being religious doesn’t necessarily make you ethical.
4. “I am a little mystified that you question the 'acceptability' of rejecting all religions”
What some journalists, Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling and others are saying is that we should do away with religion because it’s irrational and leads to violence. What I said was that it is not religious belief per se that leads to violence; humans have been perfectly capable to oppress others appealing to non-religious ideas. I also think that dismissing religion as irrational is damn stupid and maybe I’ll write about this at some point.
I am certainly not saying that people should be religious or that non-religious people are bad or stupid, so why is it all right for Dawkins & friends to say that of religious people? They behave exactly like the theo-cons!
5. Secularism
I come from a country (Italy) where there has been a strong separation between church and state although it is gradually being eroded (primarily due to Berlusconi’s rightwing coalition). What I read in the media I mentioned, are not coherent arguments on secularism, but a lot of anti-religious ranting. Some, such as Theo Hobson argue that such atheist narrative originates from a section of Protestantism. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's plagueing our intellectual life now.
I started off saying that Britain has a lay society and I personally think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Britain has an established church. As mentioned, the idea of secularism is not about tolerance, besides secular states are not free from cultural dogmas (religious or otherwise). I would agree that a secular state gives a bit more of a level playing field. However, reality is that there is a de-secularisation process under way, so we’d better support liberal movements quick!
I’m afraid I thought it was quite clear when I said that the ‘battle’ is not between religious and non-religious but between liberal and illiberal. Why this question? It feels a bit like being told that if one is religious one should have quite a bit in common with the theo-cons. Anyway, aside from their insane obsession with sexual morality, what I mainly object to is their imposition of their understanding of faith that leaves no free will to choose between different faiths or none at all.
2. “Blaming religion for abuses done in its name is no more absurd than crediting it for good work done in its name.”
No, the clue is in ‘abuse’, which means wrong or improper use.
3. “The idea that values come from religion is a religious idea, and not one that can be taken for granted”
I haven’t come across any document that would evidence otherwise. The point I was making was cultural: the ideas of liberty and equality have found a place in religion (customs and thought) and develop from there. Where ethics come from is, I agree, irrelevant. I believe our sense of justice reflects God in the world (more on this later, in another post!). But you don’t need to be religious to be ethical and being religious doesn’t necessarily make you ethical.
4. “I am a little mystified that you question the 'acceptability' of rejecting all religions”
What some journalists, Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling and others are saying is that we should do away with religion because it’s irrational and leads to violence. What I said was that it is not religious belief per se that leads to violence; humans have been perfectly capable to oppress others appealing to non-religious ideas. I also think that dismissing religion as irrational is damn stupid and maybe I’ll write about this at some point.
I am certainly not saying that people should be religious or that non-religious people are bad or stupid, so why is it all right for Dawkins & friends to say that of religious people? They behave exactly like the theo-cons!
5. Secularism
I come from a country (Italy) where there has been a strong separation between church and state although it is gradually being eroded (primarily due to Berlusconi’s rightwing coalition). What I read in the media I mentioned, are not coherent arguments on secularism, but a lot of anti-religious ranting. Some, such as Theo Hobson argue that such atheist narrative originates from a section of Protestantism. It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's plagueing our intellectual life now.
I started off saying that Britain has a lay society and I personally think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Britain has an established church. As mentioned, the idea of secularism is not about tolerance, besides secular states are not free from cultural dogmas (religious or otherwise). I would agree that a secular state gives a bit more of a level playing field. However, reality is that there is a de-secularisation process under way, so we’d better support liberal movements quick!
14 November 2006
How to stop the march of the theo-cons
In recent months articles denigrating religion and calling for secularism have multiplied, from Polly Toynbee to David Starkey (or was he just publicising his book?).
Britain is quite an interesting case: it is not secular, which means prayers are recited every day in schools across the country, representatives of the church sit in the House of Lords, and blasphemy laws are still in place, notwithstanding the successive attempts to repeal them. In fact, the Religious Hatred Bill is pretty much the same, only for all faiths. At the same time, British society is fairly lay, and I reckon a lot of it has to do with the Church of England being established. In the wake of the Islamic militant fundamentalism that drove suicide bombers to attack civilians in London in 2005 (I like reminding myself that they were civilians, it puts things into perspective), but also faced with the forceful rise of the theo-cons, journalists and the so-called intelligentsia are panicking. They see as common denominator religion, therefore religion must be the cause of this evil. Wouldn’t the world be a better and safer place without it? Isn’t religion contrary to reason and driving people to intolerance and hatred? Err, no. In fact this is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. One might question whether religious fundamentalism is worse than other ideological fundamentalism, although I don’t think there’s convincing evidence to support this, but to blame religion for the abuses perpetrated in the name of a faith is frankly absurd. Should we do away with science because of the atomic bomb? Should we do away with the legal system for any miscarriage of justice? Should we do away with politicians because of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and friends? If you answered yes, don’t bother any further.
It now seems acceptable and ‘intelligent’ to brush away religion in its entirety.
Religious wars happened because of political reasons. Contrary to David Starkey’s understanding of history, Christianity's distinction between the sacred and the secular has always been more philosophical than historical. Since the edict of Constantine, Christianity enjoyed political power, saw it increase exponentially during the Middle Ages and very gradually wane until the XIX century (the last Pope King was Pious IX). When the Popes weren’t actually controlling land, they aligned themselves with temporal power. It was a joint venture between Emperor and Pope, and it was political. This is not to dispute the fact that behind the horrors of the crusades and massacres of the ‘New World’ Indios, there was an ideology of religious supremacy. However, this is common to all ideologies (Nazism, communism, nationalism), it is not the inherent characteristic of faith. By doing away with religion you do not prevent intolerance, bigotry, violence and authoritarianism.
The ideas of religious tolerance and pluralism come from ancient Greek and Roman political thought and have gradually developed in particular in connection with liberalism, but also as a result of the sheer exhaustion caused by successive religious wars. Secularism is NOT religious tolerance but separation between religious power and state which happened in Europe in relative recent times. Nevertheless, Toynbee ascribes almost magical qualities to secularism. Secularism has never protected women’s rights, this is because violence against women does not originate in religion. It is rooted in misogyny and reinforced by the political, economic, social and physical oppression of women.
Ironically, liberal democracy, being based on liberty and equality, is the fruit of monotheistic morality. Ethics is what makes us say that intolerance is wrong and comes from religion. Fundamentalism will be defeated by the concerted effort of all to preserve liberal democracy. The rise of fundamentalists and theo-cons is a challenge and an opportunity to liberal theology. Liberal movements are growing in various religions and could be central to philosophical renewal. It is essential that we grasp this opportunity and support the come back of a liberal rationalist religion rather than fear religion.
The great difference is not between religious and secular, but between liberal and illiberal.
Britain is quite an interesting case: it is not secular, which means prayers are recited every day in schools across the country, representatives of the church sit in the House of Lords, and blasphemy laws are still in place, notwithstanding the successive attempts to repeal them. In fact, the Religious Hatred Bill is pretty much the same, only for all faiths. At the same time, British society is fairly lay, and I reckon a lot of it has to do with the Church of England being established. In the wake of the Islamic militant fundamentalism that drove suicide bombers to attack civilians in London in 2005 (I like reminding myself that they were civilians, it puts things into perspective), but also faced with the forceful rise of the theo-cons, journalists and the so-called intelligentsia are panicking. They see as common denominator religion, therefore religion must be the cause of this evil. Wouldn’t the world be a better and safer place without it? Isn’t religion contrary to reason and driving people to intolerance and hatred? Err, no. In fact this is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. One might question whether religious fundamentalism is worse than other ideological fundamentalism, although I don’t think there’s convincing evidence to support this, but to blame religion for the abuses perpetrated in the name of a faith is frankly absurd. Should we do away with science because of the atomic bomb? Should we do away with the legal system for any miscarriage of justice? Should we do away with politicians because of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and friends? If you answered yes, don’t bother any further.
It now seems acceptable and ‘intelligent’ to brush away religion in its entirety.
Religious wars happened because of political reasons. Contrary to David Starkey’s understanding of history, Christianity's distinction between the sacred and the secular has always been more philosophical than historical. Since the edict of Constantine, Christianity enjoyed political power, saw it increase exponentially during the Middle Ages and very gradually wane until the XIX century (the last Pope King was Pious IX). When the Popes weren’t actually controlling land, they aligned themselves with temporal power. It was a joint venture between Emperor and Pope, and it was political. This is not to dispute the fact that behind the horrors of the crusades and massacres of the ‘New World’ Indios, there was an ideology of religious supremacy. However, this is common to all ideologies (Nazism, communism, nationalism), it is not the inherent characteristic of faith. By doing away with religion you do not prevent intolerance, bigotry, violence and authoritarianism.
The ideas of religious tolerance and pluralism come from ancient Greek and Roman political thought and have gradually developed in particular in connection with liberalism, but also as a result of the sheer exhaustion caused by successive religious wars. Secularism is NOT religious tolerance but separation between religious power and state which happened in Europe in relative recent times. Nevertheless, Toynbee ascribes almost magical qualities to secularism. Secularism has never protected women’s rights, this is because violence against women does not originate in religion. It is rooted in misogyny and reinforced by the political, economic, social and physical oppression of women.
Ironically, liberal democracy, being based on liberty and equality, is the fruit of monotheistic morality. Ethics is what makes us say that intolerance is wrong and comes from religion. Fundamentalism will be defeated by the concerted effort of all to preserve liberal democracy. The rise of fundamentalists and theo-cons is a challenge and an opportunity to liberal theology. Liberal movements are growing in various religions and could be central to philosophical renewal. It is essential that we grasp this opportunity and support the come back of a liberal rationalist religion rather than fear religion.
The great difference is not between religious and secular, but between liberal and illiberal.
02 November 2006
The media we deserve
I’ve been critical of the media lately, but I think it’s because I value them rather than despise them. In recent posts, I complained about the media’s obsession for religious fundamentalism and their unwillingness to ask the important questions behind the issues. A friend of mine wrote to me saying:
Absolutely! The media follow their audience and give us ‘what we want’, or do they? I abandoned TV a few years ago, I survive well watching Yes, Minister on DVD. I can’t say I can find much I like and I don’t want to spend too much time in front of a small screen without any interaction. Besides, TV is over, the internet is more interesting and poses a more ardous challenge. The mushrooming of blogs and ‘independent’ channels and websites means people are looking for tailored information, for what corroborates their stance and prejudice, for the answers they want. So, what is the role of the media? Are the media there to entertain us? To tell us what we want to hear? To comfort us? To pander to our fears and desires, no matter how low and destructive? I feel that when they do so, and it is far too often these days, they fall short of fulfilling their obligations and betray our trust as much as politicians do playing their game. The media are an important institution in a democratic country. Their role is to defend and foster our ideas of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. They thus have a moral duty to report the facts, not the propaganda, to hold politicians into account, not to vilify them. They have a moral duty to ask the difficult questions, to be our conscience.
We all, as citizens, have a responsibility towards the safeguarding of liberal democracy. No one is exempt from this duty. It does not descend from citizenship, nationality or culture, but from our belonging to humanity. We have a duty to defend and foster freedom and justice. If we fail, there are no excuses, no one else to blame but us.
Good night and good luck!
One of my favourite things about the BBC website is its 'most read' ratings - it always fascinates (and often horrifies) me what people choose to read, and at the moment articles that deal with religious controversies, especially those involving Islam, seem to be of greater interest to readers than ever. I'm not saying that the media's interest in crimes involving religion over those involving gender is right - far from it. Rather, I doubt the media has any interest in ignoring one in favour of the other unless it is mirroring its audience's own interests, for good or ill.
Absolutely! The media follow their audience and give us ‘what we want’, or do they? I abandoned TV a few years ago, I survive well watching Yes, Minister on DVD. I can’t say I can find much I like and I don’t want to spend too much time in front of a small screen without any interaction. Besides, TV is over, the internet is more interesting and poses a more ardous challenge. The mushrooming of blogs and ‘independent’ channels and websites means people are looking for tailored information, for what corroborates their stance and prejudice, for the answers they want. So, what is the role of the media? Are the media there to entertain us? To tell us what we want to hear? To comfort us? To pander to our fears and desires, no matter how low and destructive? I feel that when they do so, and it is far too often these days, they fall short of fulfilling their obligations and betray our trust as much as politicians do playing their game. The media are an important institution in a democratic country. Their role is to defend and foster our ideas of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. They thus have a moral duty to report the facts, not the propaganda, to hold politicians into account, not to vilify them. They have a moral duty to ask the difficult questions, to be our conscience.
We all, as citizens, have a responsibility towards the safeguarding of liberal democracy. No one is exempt from this duty. It does not descend from citizenship, nationality or culture, but from our belonging to humanity. We have a duty to defend and foster freedom and justice. If we fail, there are no excuses, no one else to blame but us.
Good night and good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)