Embryo wars - science, morality and a Bill ...

The Embryo Bill finally gets its second reading in Parliament today. The three main questions put to MPs will be:
Hybrid embryos: scientists want to create embryos that are over 99% human for research into stem cells by implanting DNA from an adult human nucleus into a cow or rabbit egg.
Access to IVF for lesbian couples: the bill changes the wording of the current act to remove the "need for a father" provision for children conceived by IVF.
"Saviour siblings". The circumstances in which children genetically matched to a sibling with a genetic disease can be created by IVF are to be relaxed.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries has also tabled amendments to reduce the limit for abortions to 20 weeks instead of the current 24. For more on the proposals see the Guardian.

the debate:

I don’t think there’s been a reasoned debate in the media about the Bill. There’s been hyperbole from Cardinal Keith O'Brien warning against ‘Frankenstein science’, there’s been the question of allowing a free vote on certain aspects but not the entire Bill, but no debate. I wonder how MPs have taken a decision on how to vote on the legislation. What did they read? Whom have they consulted? What principles have they applied?

It is a moral issue. However, as usual, the more liberal voices do not make the news. I believe morality has a place within liberalism (as a philosophy, in fact I believe liberal ideas are fundamentally moral ideas. I would thus welcome moral issues being discussed in the public arena from a liberal point of view, which is what I try to do on this blog. (See BBC on previous stem cell research controversy).

the morality:

Scientific and technological advancements are increasingly entering the sphere of morality. Whilst some neglect the moral implications of medical or scientific research, some others are monopolising the moral discourse and firmly grounding it along absolutist lines, such as embryos having equal value to human beings and so on. I’m not clear what the official or unofficial position of the various groups is as the debate on abortion has been added to the issue of stem cell research and the issue is getting rather muddled.
From my perspective, morality being ‘not in heaven’, but down here, where there are real situations, benefits, harm, good and evil, all at the same time, it cannot be reduce to black and white. It is about choosing what is best, or better or, sometimes, just the lesser evil. There are various interpretations of ‘life’ (especially when it starts and ends) and there are many aspects to its sanctity. This is why you need flexibility, which makes Judaism complex, but isn’t life complex?

From a ‘moral point of view’, I believe society should pursue the common good. Human beings are partners in creation with God and are under moral obligation to fight injustice and suffering, be that coming from our own actions or the natural environment. From the point of view of ‘moral liberalism’, we should strive to reconcile the pursuit of the common good with individual freedom. General moral principles, however, such as the ‘sanctity of life’, require interpretation in the light of knowledge of facts.

science & morality:

In this instance, hybrid embryos are considered by the scientific community to be an avenue to find a cure for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. There might not be the only one, but a pretty good one. It is true that it is now possible to employ adult stem cells, however this is so because scientists have developed the necessary knowledge based on their research on embryonic stem cells. As such, the case for the pursuit of the common good is, I believe, quite clear. The present Bill seems to be putting in place the right safeguards while allowing research that can save many lives. The Bill does not allow the creation from scratch of embryos, nor are the hybrid embryos allowed to develop after 14 days or to be implanted.

In Judaism (see, for example, Orthodox site Aish), life does not start at conception, but later on. This is mostly derived by the pecuniary sanctions imposed on someone who unintentionally causes a miscarriage by striking a woman (Ex.21,22). It is not a capital crime.
The foetus becomes a full human being once it’s born. Nevertheless, it is protected during the pregnancy and abortion ‘on demand’ is not halachically permitted. There need to be serious grounds for abortion to be allowed, which vary depending on the specific situation. They tend to include psychological trauma to the mother, rape, incest and, for some, disability. Opinions vary, however, on what constitute legitimate grounds, not only between Reform Liberal and Orthodox Judaism, but also within each movement. Most importantly, it cannot be regulated according to general principles; rather it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That’s why most Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum have supported the Bill.

Maidenhead Synagogue Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Judaism is just as concerned at the sanctity of human life as Catholicism but strongly differs from Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Easter sermon against the Embryology Bill. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research is not to be condemned as 'Frankenstein science' but welcomed as a life-saving development that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes.
Crossing boundaries always carries risks, but providing safeguards against abuse are put in place, there is no need to fear the future and it is irresponsible to hold-back the progress that could benefit so many lives. The Cardinal is accusing scientists of creating monsters, but maybe it is even more monstrous to obstruct possible cures.”

Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

The immorality of the death penalty

I’ve recently been in a discussion on capital punishment and here are some reflections on the moral issues surrounding it.
[I therefore will not discuss crime as a whole, its causes and what we should do about it. I would obviously want more to be done to tackle the causes of crime, including corporate crime, and create more opportunities for all.]

I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. It seems to be the product of an inherently deterministic approach to life, be it socio-economic determinism (societal and economic condition leading to crime) or biological (genetic predisposition).
I believe in free will, the capacity to choose between right and wrong so I cannot accept determinism. Whilst I accept that socio-economic conditions, upbringing, DNA etc. can influence one’s life and lead to certain directions, I believe we can choose how to act, no matter how difficult it might be. Not all people with the same/similar upbringing, who have lived in deprived conditions or who have a tendency towards violence, act violently.
Furthermore, people change over time and gain understanding and responsibility. To sentence people to death implies denying our changing nature. It implies that none of us gain understanding, maturity and deepen our conscience over time.
It seems to suggest that one becomes an adult when turning 18, or even before, and there is no change, no redemption afterwards. Therefore, to kill the killer means depriving the person of the opportunity to change and to repair.

However, I shall consider the contrary opinions. Opposition to the above argument is generally predicated on two main considerations:

1. Retaliation: many supporters of capital punishment argue that the perpetrator of the crime needs to atone his/her crimes by getting the just deserts or an equal punishment. This is Immanuel Kant’s argument based on the principle of equality. For a thorough bashing of it, see Wright.
It is difficult to see the difference between retaliation and vengeance. In the case of capital punishment, retaliation is extreme and therefore the punishment has no other purpose than to punish. If, however, we accept an element of re-education in the punishment of all lesser crimes, we cannot discount such element for very serious ones. Alternatively, one needs to establish what makes ‘serious crimes’ serious? Which yardstick shall we use? If all sentences are simply to punish, it implies that human beings cannot learn anything and change. It fundamentally denies free will.

2. Loss of humanity: according to some, perpetrators of heinous crimes lose their humanity by virtue of committing such crimes. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, the criminal decidit a dignitate humana, ceases to be human, thus to kill him/her is sicut occidere bestiam, like killing an animal.

The idea of loss of humanity is an interesting one although the most contradictory:
1. It potentially negates the idea of free will, which is a key component of our humanity. If the criminal was fully conscious, exercised free will when committing the crime, how can he/she lose it by committing the crime? Do we lose our free will and consciousness when we do something that is wrong? Can we gain it back?
2. Does the criminal lose his/her humanity only by virtue of committing the crime? If so, this implies that social conditioning have no impact on human behaviour. Do they have an impact only on less severe crimes?
3. Was the criminal ‘less human’ before committing the crime due to social or biological conditioning? This leads to pre-crime intervention, be it ‘societal’ (see one of Blair's ideas) or medicalisation (as in A clockwork orange).
4. What crimes lead one to lose one’s humanity? How would these be classified?
5. What is humanity? I assume in this context, humanity is seen as what moves us beyond our ‘lowest’ passions such as hatred, but it is implied rather than explained. It does not address the possibility of us all being deprived of our humanity (through enslavement, for example) although not committing crimes. If, once humanity is lost, it is never re-gained, should the state deprive of freedom those who have lost their humanity through enslavement? Or is it just for those who pose a danger to society?
6. Who would exercise the supreme right and duty to put the criminal to death? The Leviathan comes to mind. Nevertheless, in the Hobbesian social contract, one negotiates away only the minimum rights to ensure peace. How can the right to life be considered a right that can be dispensed of if necessary to maintain the peace?
7. Does killing the perpetrator lead to peace?

I believe that such arguments leave one only with vengeance. What is vengeance?
1. Vengeance is taking satisfaction from the suffering or death of another as repayment for one’s loss and suffering. It’s the lex talionis, often referred to as ‘eye for an eye’. In reality the Talmud is very explicit in showing that eye for an eye shows a restriction on violence moving towards the taking of the value of an eye for the loss of an eye. The penalty is not the equivalence of the crime suffered by the victim.
2. It’s very human, but it can also be seen as brutalising and dehumanising the one who seeks vengeance. Cesare Beccaria argues that it desensitises us from suffering. Beccaria, together with the Verri brothers, was perhaps the first modern criminologist and certainly the most important advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.
3. It doesn’t lead to peace, instead it seems to lead to cleansing.

In conclusion, I believe that those who advocate capital punishment are after something else. They are moved by the primordial need for justice, for purity, which becomes only vengeance. By taking away the humanity of the perpetrator of the crime and thus his/her possibility of redemption, capital punishment symbolises the cleansing of our collective crimes and conscience. According to this logic, those who attack our purity by committing crimes need to be killed just as the sacrificial lamb represents the community’s sins. It is a communal catharsis where the society is cleansed by killing the bogey man. An important element is missing: repentance. The sacrificial lamb does not atone the community unless the community (and the perpetrator of the crime) repents. Some perpetrators might never repent; some of them do enjoy the pain and fear of their victims, but who is this Leviathan who scrutinises the soul and condemns it forever?

death penalty
morality

Law, morality and the Archbishop

I read Rowan Williams’ long pages of ambiguous woolliness and managed not to get too irritated. He’s right, of course, to say that as soon as you mention sharia most people (or the media?) think “it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments”. No wonder it caused such a bang, which, I assume, was Rowan’s intention to ‘diffuse’ or confuse tensions ahead of Lambeth Conference. It feels, however, that he has miscalculated how loud the bang would be.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:

recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.

To counter this problems, he reassures us that

If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.

This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.

The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.

Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. It is difficult to see quite why the principle cannot be extended in other areas.

Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.

Science, religion and the Golden Compass

This was one of those times when I wondered why I still bother going to the cinema at all. The Golden Compass is visually unimaginative, the acting is perfunctory, the script is bland and the morale utter trash.
The experience is made worse by the tendency of cinema theatres to keep the volume ridiculously high. I’m not sure whether that is done to compensate for lack of substance or to keep you awake.
The fuss about GC is in its ‘morale’, which is an unsophisticated whinge against authority. I understand the book (Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights) is supposedly critical of the Catholic Church for abusing its authority by keeping people in the dark. The film tones it down into a lacklustre opposition to authority.
When I sat in the cinema and watched the never ending nonsense, I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. Not having read what it was meant to be about, I was interpreting the inadequate script as a dumbed down version of the creation story. Accordingly, human beings transgressed authority and, as a result, evil becomes present in the world tempting people. The ‘authority’, aiming to keep people in their childhood ignorance and innocence, capture children before temptation can lead them astray.
One could even interpret it more blandly as a metaphor for history: a successive series of conquering what is perceived as evil, be it poverty, powerlessness, injustice and captivity, regardless of the means and oppression of others.
No such luck. The Golden Compass is paranoid fear of religious authority. Perhaps someone should point out to Pullman that the Catholic Church, and most other religious ‘authorities’, have lost their authority and power long time ago. I suppose it’s easier to look into the past (about 200 years in fact) and cover one’s eyes to our 21st century’s challenges.
Even so, the script is full of mistakes, using words inappropriately and confusing concepts such as ‘freedom’ with ‘free inquiry’ and ‘free will’. These are three separate concepts bundled together in the film by sheer ignorance.
Pullman seems to argue that authority wields power over people taking their ‘free will’ away, (by which he probably means free choice instead) and impedes free inquiry, such as the pursuit of knowledge, which he identifies it with modern science.
Free will is a philosophical category; it generally means choosing between good and evil, not what you’re having for lunch! Authorities, let alone the Catholic Church, have never taken away one’s free will. They have taken away one’s freedom by imprisoning and killing, and free choice by censoring books or people.
Pullman is stuck in the past when the Catholic Church waged war against modern science. Aside from the fact that history is much more complicated than this, the Catholic Church, at least, accepts of the theory of evolution and wields very little power, if any.
Pullman’s ignorance leads him to confine free inquiry to scientific research and to call scientific knowledge ‘truth’. Oopsy daisy!
The pursuit of the truth, being transcendent, is primarily philosophical and religious and is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry which concerns itself (or should concern itself) with objective reality.
Such incompetent ‘defenders’ of scientific inquiry feel under attack (not sure why since the bio-sciences get most of research funding) and launch an anachronistic tirade against an authority that is no more. If Pullman feels so strongly about authorities deciding for the rest of us, he should look elsewhere, at the new elites wielding power over knowledge.

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

Shiny happy people … humbug!

It might be because it’s a rather rough period for me, but I thought of scribbling something about 'positive people', all those Pollyanna thinkers who repeat the nonsensical mantras of ‘looking on the bright side’ and ‘having a positive attitude’. (I suppose it ties in with my post on being nice). I believe there’s a fundamental misconception at the core of this pseudo-philosophy. They seem to believe that if one has a positive attitude, life will be easier and better; and they even explain ‘bad luck’ or lack of success as a result of one’s attitude. Humbug!
Let’s be clear about this: if one is a castaway at sea, it’s bad luck, karma, destiny, (whatever you want to call it), it is not dependent on one’s attitude. One’s attitude can, indeed, improve one’s chances of survival, but that’s more to do with ‘keeping cool’ in a difficult situation, mastering one’s knowledge and abilities to be able to survive. It is not about being optimistic, which is a feature of one’s character.
Where’s God in all of this?
I believe that events are less important than what one does with them. It is our perception of what happens that gives meaning to it and to our life. Optimism and pessimism are equally pernicious in obfuscating one’s sight. Things happen in our reality plane (the world of action, objective reality etc.), but there are also parallel events happening in other planes, including our mind. It is our job to analyse the situation objectively but also to see it in all its aspects.
I strive to see God behind everything that happens to me (which is difficult enough, never mind what happens to others!) and to transform the bad into the good. Most of the time, it comes as a fleeting realisation, not more than a passing feeling, but it’s there. I find that only by ‘appropriating’ what happens, giving it meaning and ‘putting God in it’, I can make some sense. I don’t believe in the off the shelf philosophy ‘life is good’ or ‘life is bad’. The point is that we’re alive. We might as well live and be partners in creation by giving meaning and acting accordingly. It is our insight that gets us closer to God, not our attitude.
I have this image of God smiling at all those combative stubborn people who don’t go around with slogans, are not shiny happy people, but criticise. That’s how you change things. Besides, shiny happy people don’t get irony!

The Politics of God - yet more nonsense

Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:

1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?

Religion - what is it all about?

There seem to be people out there attempting to counterbalance anti-religious polemic unfolding on bookstores and newpapers in (mainly) the UK and the US by providing sociological and anthropological interpretations. In ‘The sacred and the human’ in Prospect Magazine, Roger Scruton gives us the anthropological interpretation of religion, while Peter Thompson goes the Ernst Bloch way in the Guardian's Face to Faith. It takes all sorts!
For Thompson, religious belief is the response to humanity's existential sense of loss and need for 'home'. Citing Bloch, Thompson states that

"what drives us forward is the paradoxical desire to find our way back to somewhere we have never been: home."

However, most ideologies serve this purpose. This interpretation does not shed any light on the continuous appeal of religion and the difference between religious faith and secular ideologies.
Scruton writes a long essay on Girard, but he seems to think that religious scriptures were understood literally until Voltaire & Co. came along to enlighten us. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scriptures start to be taken literally in the XIX century with fundamentalist movements reacting against modern science. Before that, ‘God’s word’ was always deemed as in need of exegesis precisely because it was taken as 'the word of God'. In this sense, religious ‘doctrine’ is about the meaning of creation not creation as a historical event.
Anthropology of religion plays an important role in aiding our understanding of culture and humanity’s understanding of itself. However, both sociology and anthropology of religion, have been at the forefront of the current reductionist view of religion, which sees religion, at best, as an attempt to make sense of the world, and, at worst, as a delusion. Contrary to what Scruton and Thompson suggest, religion is most definitely about God. Religious faith and theology point to the infinite and to the absolute truth. It is the human attempt to go beyond culture, society and physical reality in order to find the universal and transcendent in our being. By declaring human beings as participating in God’s infinity, religious belief transcends mortality. Perhaps this is what anti-religious polemicists find so annoying: the ability to think ourselves beyond our physical reality.

Understanding terrorism

The latest effort to ‘understand’ terrorism comes from Jenni Russell on the Guardian, who sadly fails rather miserably. She comes up with her own brand of tosh by mixing Samuel Huntingdon’s theory of the clash of civilisations, ethics and metaphysics. Aside from the fact that she confuses metaphysics with ethics, Ms Russell claims that ‘metaphysical beliefs’ are the result of “our earliest experiences and the culture around us”. As such ‘the dissonance between our own powerful sense of what is right’, which is one’s ethics, and ‘the values of the society around us’ leads some people to violent action.
There are two fundamental misconceptions at the core of this argument. Firstly, her understanding of metaphysical beliefs (term she invents!)and ethics, if you really want to bang the two together, as stemming from culture negates the universalistic nature of ethics. To take an example, human rights are founded on the universal value of life, which is not dependent on one’s geography, economic conditions or any other cultural variable. These rights, although systematically violated in most countries, are recognised across the world as human, and therefore universal, values. Secondly, this relativist idea of culture as giver of meaning and values is but an offspring of European secularist ideologies and post-colonial ideas of self-determination. Contemporary Islamists are not moved by a metaphysical belief embedded in a specific culture, but by envy. When they refer to the US as the ‘great Satan’, they do not equate it with evil, but with seduction. Islamists have been deeply influenced by Western secular nationalism of the XIX and XX centuries. Islamism has applied Islamic vocabulary to European nationalism and has thus betrayed Islam, as a religion that preaches universality. In doing so, Islamist terrorists have been inspired by an ideology borne out of relativism and that, in its extreme forms, has death at its core. The only clash is between those who choose life and those who choose death.

Law and morality

Has law anything to do with morality? I think it does. Firstly, law comes from religion as Roman law, the first legal system, testifies. Secondly, I believe you can see it in principles such as due process and presumption of innocence. Thirdly, and most importantly, human rights are nothing but the legalisation of ethical principles.
Nevertheless, one ought to recognise two things: first, by virtue of living in a society, individual (and community) rights clash with other individual (and community) rights; second, there is an aspect of ‘private morality’.
People are often uncomfortable with the fact that human rights, as enshrined in the European Convention for example, are not absolute but have restrictions. I believe ethics is something that needs to be found in the day to day conduct of people, when they interact. We act morally when we truly understand the complexity of any given situation and accommodate in such way to achieve best outcome possible. I don’t mean this in a utilitarian sense. Rather, ethics is in the contingencies not the principles, it is in the practice not in the abstract words. A defined ‘virtue’ supposedly shared by the community (as advocated by barmy Alasdair MacIntyre) is inevitably totalitarian. People have different interpretations of morality and how to act in a given situation because there are different aspects not because some are more or less moral than others!
This brings me to my point about ‘private morality’. To recognise that some choices are up to the individual is to recognise the individual’s maturity. One cannot grow and develop one’s morality if one is not permitted to exercise it. To ban certain behaviours that could be deemed immoral does not further the cause of morality. A better way to further a better moral outcome is, for example, to educate and/or to develop a sense of community. Why should humans take away the free will God gave us?
These are just few thoughts before the weekend …

The usefulness of freedom

I’ve come across a few news items on Latin lately. Yesterday, Mary Beard (Prof. In classics) defended the non-elitist nature of the study of Latin on the pages of the Guardian, and previously its usefulness on the Times.
However she might be one of very few voices on the ‘side’ of Latin. Tim Harford’s column ‘Dear Economist’ in the FT, in response to a letter from an Italian student complaining about the study of Latin, dismissed Latin in favour of Chinese and blamed a phantom teachers’ lobby for pressurising for the teaching of Latin in Italian schools. This particular column is indeed light-hearted, but this shouldn’t be an excuse for getting things wrong. Latin is still taught (alas less and less) because Italian is a Latin language and Italian, and indeed European, culture comes from the Graeco-Roman world.
To add insult to injury, an Italian student from a classical lycee and with a CV which includes excellent results from Harvard and other reputable universities, was discourage from applying to Cambridge on the grounds that a ‘classical’ preparation was not good enough for a scientific course. Indeed Latin and ancient Greek do not provide you with scientific notions but with the means to understand them and to find new ones. One would expect Cambridge to understand this and know where science comes from. It sounds like it's time for the Dons to go back to Virgilius as T S Eliot suggested.
Sadly, the educational system as a whole seems to have followed an idea of 'usefulness' in choosing to 'ease Latin out'. In our technological and scientific culture, Latin provides a non-quantifiable and non-applicable knowledge that is therefore deemed of no use. But who decides what knowledge is useful? Latin and ancient Greek are essential in developing logical and critical thinking and knowledge can only be advanced by those who can think.
And thinking is what makes you free, by the way. It is thus regrettable to see that the educational establishment is more interested in forming individuals to be useful to society rather than in aiding individuals to be free and thus model society.

Freedom of conscience

The group ‘Christian concern for our nation’ is campaigning against the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006 and petitioning the Queen today. The regulations will make it illegal for anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions to someone else, to discriminate against that person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Christian concern for our nation say, in their website, that

the Bible is clear that the only rightful sexual relationship for which we were created, is a relationship between a man and a woman in the context of a legitimate marriage. Consequently there are times when Christians need to be free to discriminate against homosexuals in order to make it clear that we believe in the Bible’s teaching that homosexual practice is wrong.

I don’t get how they jump from considering homosexual practice wrong to ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. One is free to believe and say that homosexuality is wrong but there are various reasons why this discrimination is WRONG:

1. Law: first of all, the legal system is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and ensuring that all have the same rights and freedoms, not with regulating matters of personal morality.

2. Facts: although I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, actions that can be deemed 'immoral' need to be seen in their context, they are not abstract concepts but acts done by individuals. People cannot be judged and condemned on the grounds of a rigid principle dissociated from contingencies relative to the case. For example, in a case of murder in self-defence, one could hold that the attack was immoral however justified in view of the circumstances.

3. Freedom of conscience: ironically, this group is undermining the freedom of conscience of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to consider ethical issues in the light of their own morality or their own religious tradition. To allow discrimination against homosexuals on the grounds of a specific interpretation of a religious tradition is to legally recognise such interpretation over and above any other interpretation of the same religious tradition or of any other religious or non-religious tradition. Basically, not all Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree that homosexuality is wrong and/or that it is right to discriminate against homosexuals!

Personally I consider homophobia wrong and intrinsically misogynistic. The condemnation of homosexuality is often dependent on a view of masculinity as superior to femininity, where gender roles are clearly defined and where women are valued only as 'mothers'. All that aside, it would be interesting to see whether a B&B owner member of the ‘Christian concern for our nation’ searched for contraceptives in his/her customers’ luggage or checked whether his/her customers are by any chance adulterous.

In search of God

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 …

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!

Nobody is infallible

Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian, not a politician and puts his theology first regardless of the political context in which we live. In catholic theology the Pope might represent God on earth, but in practise he represents the 1.1 billion catholics world-wide and the catholic hierarchy in front of the world. Hopefully he will now look for sound political assistants to make sure he’s on message. The pontiff might not have meant to insult Islam when he quoted an obscure Christian emperor, but he doesn’t have an unblemished record either. As reported in the Times, the Pope abolished the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, subsuming it into another council and dispatching its head, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a high profile arabist, as his emissary to Egypt and the Arab League. As a cardinal, he opposed Turkish membership of the European Union. Earlier on this year, visiting Auschwitz, he blamed Hitler and his squad for using ordinary Germans, he did not even consider the role of the Church in fostering anti-Semitism and seemed to interpret the Holocaust as the attempt by forces of evil to annihilate Christianity, the Jews being only the pawns used to achieve this. Not many people noticed, but this position did not do inter-faith dialogue any good.
The current controversy is born yet again from the pontiff’s theology rather than politics. He might have been quoted out of context, he didn’t quite endorse the emperor’s opinion of Islam, but the speech doesn’t absolve him one bit. In short (in his speech as printed on the Guardian), the Pope affirms that religion and human reason are not at odds, in particular, Christianity incorporates Greek philosophy into biblical faith thus deriving a religion based on rationality. It follows that what is unreasonable, such as violence, goes against God’s nature. He goes on to lament a long process of ‘de-hellenisation’ and later secularisation, whereby religion has been relegated to the realm of the personal, and is not accepted as rational.
The problem, however, stems from what is not said and how he said what he said. With regards to Islam, he quoted a condemnation of Islam by the fourteenth century Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologus II without distancing himself from it. Although he wasn't very explicit, he seemed to imply that Christianity made a separation between law and religion, between state and God, which is not present in either Judaism and Islam. This is something that has been argued amongst some theologians, but it's not free from problem. While it’s true that the concept of political revelation and philosophy is not significant in Christianity as it is in Judaism and Islam, we should not forget that Christianity rested on a Christian Roman Empire, not a secular state. The Pope also appears ignorant of the medieval philosophy he’s referring to and how Christianity synthesised Greek thought. It was through Jewish and Muslim sources, it didn't happen by miracle. In short, had it not been for Averroes and Maimonides, to name just the most famous ones, Christianity wouldn’t have had Tommaso d’Aquino. The Pope also seems to forget that it was Tommaso’s philosophy that led to science and so on, but that’s another story.
The Pope also seemed to equate Islam with Ibn Hazn’s theology. The Byzantine emperor argues that spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable, and that violence is incompatible with the nature of God. However, Benedict seems to say that this is not so for ‘Muslim teaching’ (as in Ibn Hazn), which holds that God is absolutely transcendent and cannot be bound by any of our categories, even that of rationality. This is not Muslim teaching, is an interpretation of one philosopher!
The speech, however, is not only critical of Islam. Although the Pope acknowledges the ‘positive aspects of modernity’, he criticises pretty much everything from the Reformation onwards, Kant in primis. I quite like medieval rationalist theology (of all three main religions) and I believe that religion and ethics have a place in society, do not contradict human reason (evolution included!) and can be a progressive force. The problem is that the Pope didn’t say this, he simply showed ignorance of philosophy in general.
He apologised, only to Muslims though ;) however his effigies have been burnt, mass protests have taken place, and two churches have been fire-bombed in Gaza and a nun was killed. Not bad for a rather unremarkable speech! We can definitely say that the Pope’s speech was sexed up by people who seem to be looking for ways to get Muslims to protest. As in the previous protest against the Danish newspapers’ cartoons, this latest campaign has been carefully organised on the internet to inflame Muslims, and it has taken them some time too. It would be interesting to know who is behind it and from whom they get their money. Nevertheless, the reaction is still disproportionate. It would have been better if leaders of Muslim states who have reacted with outrage had bothered reading the speech and proposed frank and open dialogue with Christians but also in their own communities, instead of pleasing anti-western sentiment and pour gasoline onto the fire. Both sides appear rather fundamentalist, in the sense that they see only their own narrow interpretation of the world and God and affirm their superiority over the other. They are doing a disservice to their heritage.
Ironically, they are both extremely modern and reacting to the deep changes in society that have taken place for quite some time. They are both reacting to a globalised technological world but fail to understand that only by embracing modernity, which includes tolerance, they can survive. Above everything else, violence is certainly not justifiable. Violence only brings more violence.

Desperately seeking liberals

Religion is definitely back on the agenda, schisms included. What is interesting is the ‘battle’ between the devout sceptics (some anti-religion scientists) and the devout reactionaries (the religious right). The two have a lot in common; they are ignorant of both religion and science and are terribly intolerant. Liberal approaches to religion are not deemed by the media interesting so one has to endure a lot of nonsense from both sides be it creationism, homophobia and sexism, or God getting an X-ray.
Starting from the latter, to argue that there is no evidence for God and therefore God does not exist, forces the laws of physics onto metaphysics thus failing to understand the laws of logic. If by God we mean something or, indeed, no-thing beyond existence and the physical world, it follows that It cannot be subject to any verification in the physical world.
God aside, the anti-religion ‘crusaders’ like reducing religion to blind faith in God, scriptures and whatever the latest noise a celeb-religious figure has made. Religion is not a belief system per se; any religion, often despite its leaders’ preferences, has different theologies that contain several interpretations. As someone who has read the bible cover to cover and reads it regularly once a week, I consider the ‘literalist’ interpretation deeply flawed and inevitably contradictory. It is flawed because the bible is a complex text that has different levels and therefore necessitates exegesis. It is contradictory because it has been written over a very long stretch of time, by different people, the text was only later vocalised and it has contradictory passages (from a literal point of view), for example two creation stories.
Even from a strictly theological point of view, to take religious texts literally is intellectually impoverished. The sciences used to encompass all including theology. Arguably, the medieval rationalist approach of Averroes, Tommaso d’Aquino (Thomas Aquinas) and Maimonides, to name one from each monotheistic religion, lay the foundations of science. It is sad that neither the religious nor the anti-religious understand this. As we are going through a de-secularisation process, democracy and society face a serious challenge. However, most religious authorities are not engaging in any real debate on the values of liberty and equality that are entrenched in our legislation. They want to play politics but do not follow the rules. Of course, in this they are aided by arrogant and ignorant 'atheist/scientists' who think they understand the entire universe and beyond. Time for the liberals to start debating.