With the help of communities secreatary John Denham , the British government is setting up an panel of religious leaders to advise on public policy decisions. Over at the Guardian, Anthony Grayling takes this truly bad idea apart with a series of rhetorical questions, e.g.:
And what, Mr Denham, of the rule of law as this will be viewed by your faith advisers? Is each citizen of this country equal before the same law for all, or will injustice and discrimination thrive behind the closed doors of faith-based courts? Are each of the faiths to be allowed exceptions and exemptions – for example, so that any faith school can exclude well-qualified teachers because they do not share the ancient superstition with which a particular school seeks to brainwash small children’s minds?
Also Mr Denham, why is your policy so discriminatory in itself? What of the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the Mother Goddess worshippers? What of the Druids, the White Witches, the Pagans, the astrologers, the Satanists? Are these not “faith groups” whose outlooks have precisely as much credibility and evidence-base as the Christians and Muslims? Are you going to include them and give them some of our tax money too? Can I start an “I Believe in Fairies” church and can I come to your meetings and get some government hand-outs too? If not, why not?
The minister in question is not even religious himself. I think he’s described himself as a secular humanist in the past. The fact that an election is looming in the UK for the in power Labour Party creates a suspicion in my mind that this is simply an attempt to appease some of the more gullible sections of the community.
Anthony forgot about: http://www.dudeism.com/
I liked Richard Dawkins’ letter:
“Dear Mr Denham
Why stop at ‘faith groups’? Surely the following are at least as well qualified as ‘faith groups’ for a seat on your panels of ‘policy advisers’: stamp collectors, hill walkers, professional pingpong players, embroiderers, model railway buffs, ballroom dancers, trainspotters, balletomanes, bassoonists, yachtswomen, pub-quiz players, and contenders for the world record for oily rag clutching.
Richard Dawkins”
I would hope this is just a pointless PR exercise. Labour lost a lot of muslim support over Iraq and they’re going to need all the votes they can get in the elections next year…
For all Labour’s touchy-feely courting of Muslims, Catholics and the Church of England over the last 12 years, they still brought in what is basically gay marriage, overturned all the demented homophohic legislation (e.g. section 28, differing ages of consent) and made life easier for working women.
Saying that, the attempts to appease vocal religious groups are worrying – especially regarding ‘Faith’ schools.
These are actually rather unpopular amongst the population at large, but even modest attempts at reform (forcing the schools to take 20% from outside of the religious group) were shelved after vociferous lobbying.
For one, “faith schools” should have absolutely no government funding nor tax exemptions. They’re not only a business but a pernicious business. Any government around the world will do well to treat them like all other businesses – no handouts and no tax exemptions. In Australia the various jesus cults love their government handouts while whining about how they’re persecuted. I tell them they’ll have more to whine about as the mohammed cults realize they can game the system too – then the jesus and mohammed cults will be competing for what will hopefully be a diminishing government handout. It is outright scary that governments buckle to religious demands. In Australia the jesus cults seem to be slowly realizing that the mohammed cults are indeed picking up on their share of the public’s money but it appears that they prefer to keep their mouth shut because they don’t want to lose all of what the government hands them – or else the government is increasing the religious funding. Imagine that – no taxes + they get government handouts. What a crock.
From the Telegraph article: “Mr Denham argued that Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues, such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change.”
What would those ‘insights’ on tackling climate change be – “Climate change is bad”? “We should tackle it”? Or how about “The best way to tackle it is to ask secular science”?
There is a not so small effort within environmentalist thinking to “dialog” with faith. I think it is best illustrated by this initiative at Yale:
http://fore.research.yale.edu/
Watch the video. Ms. Tucker lays it all out.
I think the claims of these people are interesting, in part because there is such an overlap between biology and conservation.
The people involved in this are very keen on defining religion as being centrally concerned with the “care of creation” – and in ethics with the stance that religious faith mandates conservation minded behavior. A big strain of this is tied into Christian thoughts on “Justice”. In my view, this program is driven from the science side, and is an attempt to co-opt religion for what they see as a kind of failure within the environmental movement itself.
Of course to do this you can’t be AC Grayling, or JAC, with all this “incompatibility” talk.
at 10:20 Grimm makes an amazing claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0bQ3SwDI8
he says that religion abandoned the field of cosmology 500 years ago, and they stopped being concerned with how the world is …
it is an amazing claim, that illustrates just how delusional liberal theology is … they actually think that people who hold religious ideas do not think these ideas are really about the real world …
A simpler way to look at this would be to say, 500 years ago someone figured out how to grind glass, that led to a way to investigate the cosmos that did not involve saying, kid, “go ask your grandfather, can’t you see i’m looking at these chicken entrails.”
Listened to a little over 4 minutes of Tucker and Grim until I could bear no more… what vacuous, parochial (Christian) and condescending rubbish, recited in tones of unctuous well-meaning and coupled with sickeningly sentimental photos in which individuals adopt odd and self-deprecating postures before the wonders of the universe. I’m surprised that any self-respecting university, let alone a place with a reputation like Yale’s, should allow such stuff to be published under its aegis; surprised also that they should employ such people. If instead of talking about rays or floods of light from other traditions, they showed signs of having addressed another tradition, I might feel less critical, but there is nothing there but condescending chat about rays of light from which you get the clear sense that their nice little Christian minds will never be changed by what they pretend to be honouring.
Well this is an interesting part of the world of religion, and it is sad that in the tenured, well funded world of institutions like Yale, there is not a more vigorous debate about this. My view is that powerful environmentalists agreed that their movement was indeed to limited by technical policy activity and legalistic approaches to problems, and there was a huge need pursue the environment as a moral issue.
Though the latest wave of atheists are focused on faith as an engine of social conflict – the fact is that places like Yale started as western madrassas, they are made up of churches, and on every New England green there is a church, or 10. The clergy is part of the fabric of civilization, and always have claimed a seat at the table of power. They solemnize and officiate at our most important personal moments – they make us “legitimate” – it has nothing to do with “revelation” and everything to do with each other.
It is this part that feels so painfully betrayed by Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris, as each of these men, in one way or another come from these kinds of “faith” communities. The ones burrowed deeply at the bottom of every important western societal effort.
It matters not one bit to them about God, or the details of religion – but BEING religious to them means having deep commitment and deep emotion for things that matter.
In some ways I think that Tucker and Grim simply feel that they are doing what Sam Harris is asking, trying to find a way to have a conversation about our deepest personal concerns and spiritual feelings without being flagrantly irrational.
It is a very interesting area – currently it is just easier for “them” to side with Mooney and Ruse, and write off the new Atheists as Vandals.
What is/are spiritual feeling(s)? Does one need an unearthly floater inside to get them? How are they different from emotional feelings?
I do know that I never have nor ever will need a christian to made me legitimate, so not sure what you are getting at there. It seems to me that the christians need to be honored at functions or they won’t feel legitimate not the other way round.
The abrahamic religions (and many other religions for that matter) are run by manipulative primitive dumbshits. There is no place for religion in a civilized and educated society; for all the good they claim to do they are the bastions of ignorance and intolerance. You say religions officiate over peoples’ most personal moments – I say they intrude and exploit. Religions relish that they have such control over their sheep that they can not only intrude but are expected to do so and are even welcomed. Just think for a moment: boy meets girl, boy wants to hump girl and girl wants to hump boy – OH NO! No no no no no! They will be punished for their evil thoughts by the Great Sky Fairy! No no no no no – not without the official approval of the Great Sky Fairy’s Grand Poobah On Earth. Officiate indeed, sanctimonious assholes.
madscientist you are spot on, in my benighted religious days I used to twist my tiny mind up into all sorts of knots trying to reconcile Christian theology and practice with reality, until one day it occurred to me ” you know what this is all bollocks ” and lo I was cured. As for faith and the environment, well call me an old cynic but didn’t Christianity spend the best part of two millennia fearing the natural world and denouncing any serious attempt to understand it as heresy and/or necromancy? Stewardship ? do me a favour, the universe gets along just fine without a lot of sandal wearing busybodies trying to take over at the wheel.
Let’s hope it’s just a political move and not something more insidious (like actually taking advice from zealots on public policy!)
in other news…
—
My friend over at PBS just launched the Nova Beta website for Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/) and she’s looking for comments and traffic. The site is loaded with great content, including entire Nova episodes and parts of the Becoming Human series. Please check it out!