This article sums up very well the controversies about the formation of the Respect Coalition in England and Wales.
There are some more details to be added: notably the reaction of the activist layer of the Left. There has been widespread hostility to the abandonment of explicit socialist references in the Coalition and its communalist appeal to the \’Muslim\’ vote. Another bone of contention was the \’top-down\’ anti-democratic nature of the new body\’s operations. Much of this has been expressed on Yahoo Newsgroups (notably the UK Left Network and the Independent Socialist list), and journals such as What Next? It can be said without exaggeration that one of the consequences of Respect\’s creation has been the most intense factional fighting the English and Welsh left has known for a couple of decades.
The net result was a split in the Socialist Alliance – a minority refused to support the Coalition and formed its own network, the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform (SADP).
At present there is controversy about the \’slection\’ (otherwise knowna s parachuting) in of former Daily Express journalist, Yvonne Ridley, as the Respect candidate in the Leicester South parliamentary by-Election. Ridley, who was not present at her selection meeting (whose voting rights are unclear since Respect has few, if any, members in Leicester), has a colourful background. Kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan she converted to Islam after her release. After doing so she has expressed the opinion that the jihadists (Taliban and Al-Qaida) were fighting for the same ideals as the Republican International Brigade in the Spanish civil war, and that she admires their \”deering do.\” She has defended the racialist cleric, Abu Jazma, saying \”I\’m a Muslim, I don\’t think it\’s constructive to criticise other Muslims.\” And, \”I don\’t have a problem with him\” – he is a creation of the media, best not talked about. A further source of leftist discontent is that she sends her offspring to private schools.
Phil Doré mentions Respect’s circumnavigation of gender issues to avoid offending “the more reactionary elements within the Muslim community”. Later on Doré refers to “reactionary organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain”. Can one infer from this that, in PD’s opinion, the Muslim community consists of (a) more reactionary elements and (b) less reactionary elements, or does he believe that the Muslim community consists of (a) more or less reactionary elements and (b) non-reactionary, progressive elements? I would be very interested in learning more about any non-reactionary or ‘progressive’ elements in that community, since I haven’t come across any so far – other than the occasional cradle Muslim who is a Muslim only in the sense that she was born into that faith but has grown out of it. Perhaps I haven’t searched hard enough, but ‘progressive Muslim’ sounds pretty oxymoronic – if not plain moronic, without the oxy. Of course, I suppose one could speak of ‘progressive ex-Muslims’ or ‘progressive lapsed Muslims’. But it wouldn’t be quite the same thing.
As someone who was a devout believer and active apologist until 2001, may I add a personal comment? Arguing with believers, IF YOU GET TOO CLOSE, is just depressing. Maybe from a distance it works. But if you really care, the constant frustration can wear you down.
Some background: I was raised a Mormon, and read widely. I created the apologist website whyprophets.com and published the book \’The Bible Says 1830\’ (you can still get it at Amazon). I wanted to believe that science and religion were compatible. I really, REALLY wanted to believe it. But eventually the contrary evidence was overwhelming. Since then my dearest wish is for my family to come to the same conclusions. But they have not read the same materials, and have no wish to. Without that background, they are unlikely to question the teachings of their youth.
There are a lot of people who have left their religions and are married to devout believers. The Aimoo message boards host some very active groups for apostates married to believers. Typically the remaining believer becomes more devout. Arguing with them sometimes works, but usually it just widens the gap.
As a mature (read, aged) student, about to start a Masters in Philosophy, I am most interested in Mr. Leiter\’s comments on the purported arrogance of science and its purveyors because my special interest, within Philosophy, is the philosophy of science.
In the context of \”science vs. fundamentalism and creationism\” I heartily agree with Mr. Leiter. He touches on multiple epistemological issues as well as a profound ontological one; how do we \”know\” anything?
It seems to me that in the post-modern era \”social constructivism\” has opened a vast can of worms. While it may feel \”liberating\” to some, (in that it allows for differing points of view) it has created a new kind of tyranny that appears to serve well the interests of Andrea Lafferty and her ilk. Their enterprise, while sprinkled liberally with semi-sacred buzzwords like \”democratic\” is anything but democratic. It often feels rather facsist but then maybe that borders on hyperbole.
While I reserve the right to criticize those who adopt the authority of science, I cannot help but believe that the \”scientific method,\” as Thomas Kuhn defined it, is still the best method we have for inching closer to some kind of \”truth.\” To claim that social consensus is sufficient ground upon which to make a claim for truth and knowledge is not only, as Mr. Leiter points out, ignorant and scary, it reflects far more accurately \”arrogance\” which is defined by the Oxford dictionary as behaviour that is aggressive, assertive, presumptuous and overbearing.
Fishing out nuggets of knowledge about our planet and ourselves is hard work. However, while America continues to labour under its current, fundamentalist regime I suspect that knowledge will continue to be redefined and denegrated by those with a rather lazy, faith-based agenda.
I fully agree with the concerns in this article, but . . . .
There is far too little training in the scientific community on how to communicate that expertise to people in the general population. Whether this is especially true concerning evolution or not I do not know, but it is a problem.
There is also sometimes an apparent arrogance when a scientist refuses to commit to a dialogue with someone who has been taught to be skeptical of evolution. Not all such people are ideologues. They really want to understand something of the \”other side\”, but they can be pushed away if their questions and their starting point are rejected out of hand.
I and a colleague teach a course on the History of Science in which we spend a month on evolution. Some of our best students have been devout Christians who were sometimes deeply upset by what they encountered but, because we treated them with respect, they treated the information in the course with respect as well.
I do not know where their thinking will lead them, but I know they have a better chance of understanding science because we were not hostile to their understanding of God.
We seem to have gone astray just a wee bit from the original article on the hijab veiling of young girls. I agree with the author. Like all organised religious cults, Islam relies on parasitic clergy to oppress at least half of the adherents, generally the female half.
It, like Catholicism relies on the whims of priests to determine how free individuals should lead their lives. By all means let people explore the various religious philosophies, or irreligious philosophies and come to their own conbclusions, but let\’s preach against the clergy, in whatever guise they manifest themselves.
I support the French ban on the hijab in schools, although I would have preferred to see it as a school\’s right to require a dress code, rather than a religious issue. I am concerned that the underlying rationale for women concealing themselves in this way – to avoid arousing men\’s lust – gets lost in the discussion of religious freedom. The idea that women are responsible for men\’s feelings, or their bad behaviour, is repellent, and of course does life long damage to girls and women, leading them in turn to limit and damage their daughters – and breed arrogant sons.
I agree with the author\’s comments that the veiling of girls is a form of child abuse. I also think that any religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and often leads to lifelong unhappiness. Let adults decide which forms of escape/drugs/religion they need to indulge in, but they have no right to impose this on their children. Religious \”education\” is a tautology.
While few if any Philosophers will disagree that he practiced less than admirable science, his essays such as \”Future of an Illusion\”, and \”Civilization and Its Discontents\” are philosophical in nature. Granted, he assumes much of what current scolarship wishes to deny, but they are important contributions on the issue of human nature, determinism, free will and political systems.
\’Arrogance\’ and Knowledge – I couldn\’t decide if the author was being sarcastic or serious. If serious, then the \”arrogance\” in the title fits, but not as intended.
I don\’t see why it should be up to the government of France to decide when a child is able to make up their mind about their religious beleifs. If a child chooses to follow the faith of their family then who are the government to say that that child is uncapable of making that decision for themself?
I really dislike the way in which governments feel that they should take it upon themselves to decide when a person is capable of making a decision for themself. It is an insult to children with religious beliefs worldwide and demeans their understanding of the concept of their religion.
I for one beleive that the child should be allowed to make their own decision because they are being forced into attending school but that the parents of the child should not have a say over their displays of religious beleifs in school.
Re: Article on Respect.
This article sums up very well the controversies about the formation of the Respect Coalition in England and Wales.
There are some more details to be added: notably the reaction of the activist layer of the Left. There has been widespread hostility to the abandonment of explicit socialist references in the Coalition and its communalist appeal to the \’Muslim\’ vote. Another bone of contention was the \’top-down\’ anti-democratic nature of the new body\’s operations. Much of this has been expressed on Yahoo Newsgroups (notably the UK Left Network and the Independent Socialist list), and journals such as What Next? It can be said without exaggeration that one of the consequences of Respect\’s creation has been the most intense factional fighting the English and Welsh left has known for a couple of decades.
The net result was a split in the Socialist Alliance – a minority refused to support the Coalition and formed its own network, the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform (SADP).
At present there is controversy about the \’slection\’ (otherwise knowna s parachuting) in of former Daily Express journalist, Yvonne Ridley, as the Respect candidate in the Leicester South parliamentary by-Election. Ridley, who was not present at her selection meeting (whose voting rights are unclear since Respect has few, if any, members in Leicester), has a colourful background. Kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan she converted to Islam after her release. After doing so she has expressed the opinion that the jihadists (Taliban and Al-Qaida) were fighting for the same ideals as the Republican International Brigade in the Spanish civil war, and that she admires their \”deering do.\” She has defended the racialist cleric, Abu Jazma, saying \”I\’m a Muslim, I don\’t think it\’s constructive to criticise other Muslims.\” And, \”I don\’t have a problem with him\” – he is a creation of the media, best not talked about. A further source of leftist discontent is that she sends her offspring to private schools.
Re: Phil Doré\’s article on \’Respect\’
Phil Doré mentions Respect’s circumnavigation of gender issues to avoid offending “the more reactionary elements within the Muslim community”. Later on Doré refers to “reactionary organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain”. Can one infer from this that, in PD’s opinion, the Muslim community consists of (a) more reactionary elements and (b) less reactionary elements, or does he believe that the Muslim community consists of (a) more or less reactionary elements and (b) non-reactionary, progressive elements? I would be very interested in learning more about any non-reactionary or ‘progressive’ elements in that community, since I haven’t come across any so far – other than the occasional cradle Muslim who is a Muslim only in the sense that she was born into that faith but has grown out of it. Perhaps I haven’t searched hard enough, but ‘progressive Muslim’ sounds pretty oxymoronic – if not plain moronic, without the oxy. Of course, I suppose one could speak of ‘progressive ex-Muslims’ or ‘progressive lapsed Muslims’. But it wouldn’t be quite the same thing.
Re: science and religion
As someone who was a devout believer and active apologist until 2001, may I add a personal comment? Arguing with believers, IF YOU GET TOO CLOSE, is just depressing. Maybe from a distance it works. But if you really care, the constant frustration can wear you down.
Some background: I was raised a Mormon, and read widely. I created the apologist website whyprophets.com and published the book \’The Bible Says 1830\’ (you can still get it at Amazon). I wanted to believe that science and religion were compatible. I really, REALLY wanted to believe it. But eventually the contrary evidence was overwhelming. Since then my dearest wish is for my family to come to the same conclusions. But they have not read the same materials, and have no wish to. Without that background, they are unlikely to question the teachings of their youth.
There are a lot of people who have left their religions and are married to devout believers. The Aimoo message boards host some very active groups for apostates married to believers. Typically the remaining believer becomes more devout. Arguing with them sometimes works, but usually it just widens the gap.
July 20, 2004
Re: Arrogance and Knowledge
As a mature (read, aged) student, about to start a Masters in Philosophy, I am most interested in Mr. Leiter\’s comments on the purported arrogance of science and its purveyors because my special interest, within Philosophy, is the philosophy of science.
In the context of \”science vs. fundamentalism and creationism\” I heartily agree with Mr. Leiter. He touches on multiple epistemological issues as well as a profound ontological one; how do we \”know\” anything?
It seems to me that in the post-modern era \”social constructivism\” has opened a vast can of worms. While it may feel \”liberating\” to some, (in that it allows for differing points of view) it has created a new kind of tyranny that appears to serve well the interests of Andrea Lafferty and her ilk. Their enterprise, while sprinkled liberally with semi-sacred buzzwords like \”democratic\” is anything but democratic. It often feels rather facsist but then maybe that borders on hyperbole.
While I reserve the right to criticize those who adopt the authority of science, I cannot help but believe that the \”scientific method,\” as Thomas Kuhn defined it, is still the best method we have for inching closer to some kind of \”truth.\” To claim that social consensus is sufficient ground upon which to make a claim for truth and knowledge is not only, as Mr. Leiter points out, ignorant and scary, it reflects far more accurately \”arrogance\” which is defined by the Oxford dictionary as behaviour that is aggressive, assertive, presumptuous and overbearing.
Fishing out nuggets of knowledge about our planet and ourselves is hard work. However, while America continues to labour under its current, fundamentalist regime I suspect that knowledge will continue to be redefined and denegrated by those with a rather lazy, faith-based agenda.
I fully agree with the concerns in this article, but . . . .
There is far too little training in the scientific community on how to communicate that expertise to people in the general population. Whether this is especially true concerning evolution or not I do not know, but it is a problem.
There is also sometimes an apparent arrogance when a scientist refuses to commit to a dialogue with someone who has been taught to be skeptical of evolution. Not all such people are ideologues. They really want to understand something of the \”other side\”, but they can be pushed away if their questions and their starting point are rejected out of hand.
I and a colleague teach a course on the History of Science in which we spend a month on evolution. Some of our best students have been devout Christians who were sometimes deeply upset by what they encountered but, because we treated them with respect, they treated the information in the course with respect as well.
I do not know where their thinking will lead them, but I know they have a better chance of understanding science because we were not hostile to their understanding of God.
Amen to that! A most sensible artticle!
We seem to have gone astray just a wee bit from the original article on the hijab veiling of young girls. I agree with the author. Like all organised religious cults, Islam relies on parasitic clergy to oppress at least half of the adherents, generally the female half.
It, like Catholicism relies on the whims of priests to determine how free individuals should lead their lives. By all means let people explore the various religious philosophies, or irreligious philosophies and come to their own conbclusions, but let\’s preach against the clergy, in whatever guise they manifest themselves.
Or is that a bit too presbyterian?
I support the French ban on the hijab in schools, although I would have preferred to see it as a school\’s right to require a dress code, rather than a religious issue. I am concerned that the underlying rationale for women concealing themselves in this way – to avoid arousing men\’s lust – gets lost in the discussion of religious freedom. The idea that women are responsible for men\’s feelings, or their bad behaviour, is repellent, and of course does life long damage to girls and women, leading them in turn to limit and damage their daughters – and breed arrogant sons.
I agree with the author\’s comments that the veiling of girls is a form of child abuse. I also think that any religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and often leads to lifelong unhappiness. Let adults decide which forms of escape/drugs/religion they need to indulge in, but they have no right to impose this on their children. Religious \”education\” is a tautology.
In Focus: Freud
While few if any Philosophers will disagree that he practiced less than admirable science, his essays such as \”Future of an Illusion\”, and \”Civilization and Its Discontents\” are philosophical in nature. Granted, he assumes much of what current scolarship wishes to deny, but they are important contributions on the issue of human nature, determinism, free will and political systems.
\’Arrogance\’ and Knowledge – I couldn\’t decide if the author was being sarcastic or serious. If serious, then the \”arrogance\” in the title fits, but not as intended.
I don\’t see why it should be up to the government of France to decide when a child is able to make up their mind about their religious beleifs. If a child chooses to follow the faith of their family then who are the government to say that that child is uncapable of making that decision for themself?
I really dislike the way in which governments feel that they should take it upon themselves to decide when a person is capable of making a decision for themself. It is an insult to children with religious beliefs worldwide and demeans their understanding of the concept of their religion.
I for one beleive that the child should be allowed to make their own decision because they are being forced into attending school but that the parents of the child should not have a say over their displays of religious beleifs in school.