The churches answered criticism in the past with murder
Anthony Grayling murmurs a few gentle words to the anti-secularism crowd.
In the last few years secular liberals have been uncompromising in what they say about religion, and the targets of their criticism have squealed and complained as loudly as if they felt real flames licking round their feet. The churches answered criticism in the past with murder; if they still had the upper hand would they now restrict themselves to their critics’ choice of weapon – words?
Judging by what the churches and mosques do in parts of the world where they still have the upper hand, the answer is No.
[T]he religious persistently ask for special treatment: public money for their “faith-based” schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices, and so endlessly on. They even have the cheek to ask for “respect” for their silly and antiquated beliefs; and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook…Believe what you like but don’t expect me to admire or excuse you because of it: rather the contrary, given the fairy-stories in question. And when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can.
Even if that means we sometimes have to speak out five or ten times every day.
Since I read that article I’ve been laughing at the idea of “militant homosexuals” going around burning down churches.
It’s such a pity that those who believe in world religion super heroes, the omnipotent and mean and threatening to the naughty super heroes, make themselves out to be whiny victims of the rest of us. Poor babies. Poor little whiny gasbags. I’ve about had it with their pretend victimhood.
When you have had it with the pretend victimhood claire, what will you do about it?
When you’ve tired of leading questions designed to snark at other users for no discernible reason while keeping plausible deniability, ChrisPer, what type of question will you ask?
HAH! A hit!
To answer Chrisper’s question
Here’s a suggestion for Claire. Take a leaf out of the religiosi’s book: chop off heads off and show it on the internet; park a crane in a public place and hang em high; if it’s women you’ve got o happy day: rape scourge throw acid.
Or if the above is too medieval and probably against the law, then go subtle: stoke up the extremists so that your enemies internalise your desired censorship (Prof Spellberg can give some ideas here); introduce a legal system that ensures not quite one law for all; lobby the UN to elevate your Irritation with Pretend Victimhood to a place where it may not be criticised. And above all do this tax free.
Oh – and Claire – cherry pick your guiding text and tell little children about peace & meek lambs.
JoshS, I mean of course that it is a telling question.
I have been asking myself recently, why do I post here at all? The answer is that in the 6 years or so I have been reading here, I have enjoyed the premise of B&W that rationality and objective treatment of evidence matter greatly. I agree that they offer the best hope for people, especially via a secular political life and an objective understanding of science and economic relations. I want to see creationists stopped from pretending their twaddle is science and teaching it in schools, and I would love to see political and religio-political violence such as that against so many women stamped out.
Out of my reading here arose a high respect for our hostess OB and her work generally.
I started to post comments when I felt she was letting herself down via intolerant words about christians generally, people that I knew were good people getting on with OK, ordinary lives. Thats why what I have written has had too much tendency to snark.
To me it seems that the general tone of writers (both original posts and commenters) has become increasingly intense. Very strongly loaded language is being used more heavily and rhetorical metaphors seem to have become positions almost be taken literally.
I am sorry to have used so much snark, when I have such a high respect for the people who write here – for their positions, and for their intellect even if I disgree with their positions.
ChrisPer
You say “I felt [OB] was letting herself down via intolerant words about christians generally, people that I knew were good people getting on with OK”
Yes – all Christians that I know are good people that I get on with OK.
I don’t think it’s Christians that are being criticised; it’s their beliefs.
Yes. I refer to past times when words have been used in ways that seemed to me to disrespect persons, and I am speaking about what I realised triggers me to post. Not trying to whip up a disagreement; of course, on balance there are the vast majority of posts when she expresses decent human concern about people with harmful ideas, and I agree without piping up.
It is Christians’ beliefs and how they treat peopple because of their beliefs – that are being questioned on B&W. Not the persons’ themselves, per se.
>It is Christians’ beliefs and how they treat peopple because of their beliefs – that are being questioned on B&W.< Christians’ beliefs (and attitudes) come in a wide variety – at least, in the UK. I really don’t think one can generalise from an article by someone called Gerald Warner (who he?) posting on a rather obscure Daily Telegraph blog.
Gerald Warner seems to have a modest following in Scotland and, possibly, points South. (OK, I Googled.)I suspect that his opinion on matters North American may safely be disregarded.
Well it’s not just beliefs, it’s also institutions. It’s also, sometimes and to some extent (I think this is what’s going on in Grayling’s piece) about a kind of fashion or ‘meme’ – a trend – for saying or doing particular things. Trying to describe and criticize trends can perhaps lead to talking about groups of people as well as their beliefs and practices…but even there the talk is limited to people who do the thing being described.
In other words Grayling is generalizing about a particular trend (and, I think, extrapolating from Gerald Warner to others who make similar claims), which could be confused with talking about all Christians or all believers as such.
I try to be careful to say that I’m talking only about the people I’m talking about (people who don’t match the description needn’t take umbrage) but perhaps I don’t always succeed.
But the other side of the coin is that there is such a strong taboo on even merely disputing ‘faith’ that I think too much deference to believers-in-general works as a form of internal censorship and blocks the ability to question dogma.
So anyway (she added after an interval elsewhere) where does off-the-mark belligerent commenting come into all that, ChrisPer? I don’t see it. Claire specified what kind of people she was talking about – so what can that have to do with me using ‘intolerant words about christians generally’? I don’t get it. You think I sometimes use intolerant words about christians generally, so you retaliate by making snippy comments in reply to comments that don’t use intolerant words about christians generally? I don’t see the point of that.
Are you sure you’re being honest about your own motives? Are you sure you’re aware of them? Are you sure you’re not simply annoyed by comments that allude to the harm that intransigent ‘faith’ can do?
Or maybe you’re just annoyed by the local agreement. Sure, that can be irritating – but if you want to be disruptive of that, you’d have better success if you…you know…hit the mark.
Yes, it’s the institution, and institutional ways of demoting people to second class, but it’s also individuals. Sure, it’s easy to get on with Christians, just as it is easy to get on with most people on most occasions, but I find that, so often, all you have to do is scratch the surface, and suddenly you’re on a different level of reality, and all the typical idiocy of Christianity comes out in terms of its myths, dogmas as superstitions.
Of course, Grayling is generalising, but he’s also raising some real concerns that ordinary Christians raise everyday: in the way that they treat gay and lesbian people, for instance (see Stephen Law’s blog on this too), the way they regard other Christians (I’ve been posting on a Christian blog for some time, and the way that Christians regard each other is really troubling: ‘I have the truth,’ ‘No, I have the truth,’ and so on), and the way they so often condemn so-called secular society, as though things would be better if religions were in charge.
I think there’s a lot more in ordinary Christians’ approach to things that is more worrying than some of the suggestions I have read here seem to imply. (Not you OB.) We don’t need to be apologetic about being critical of religion and religious people, because they’re often just as bad as we think they are.
But then, of course, are the institutions and the institutional claims that are made to respect, to conformity to religious morality, and so on. Religions are a menace, full stop, and we’d be better if people went back to privatised religious belief. Do good works, help the hungry, relieve the poor, etc., but stop pushing the religious agenda.
>But the other side of the coin is that there is such a strong taboo on even merely disputing ‘faith…< I really think we should distinguish between Britain and the States. I’ve not found there to be a strong “taboo” on disputing faith in the British media, however mealy-mouthed some commentators may be. As seen on TV: Ricky Gervais on the Bible:
http://tinyurl.com/8mkpba
Yes, true, there is a big difference.
But still – even in the UK – is there not a more subtle taken-for-granted taboo at work in daily life (as opposed to the media)? Isn’t it subtly taboo to question the basic premises of theism in a way that it’s not taboo to question, say, New Age or Scientology premises?
Then again…when religion is more private and less in everyone’s face, the basic premises remain unspoken – which of course makes it a lot easier to refrain from challenging them. That is probably another difference between the UK and the US. I get very nostalgic for the good old days when people simply didn’t go in for goddy talk in public.
>But still – even in the UK – is there not a more subtle taken-for-granted taboo at work in daily life (as opposed to the media)? Isn’t it subtly taboo to question the basic premises of theism in a way that it’s not taboo to question, say, New Age or Scientology premises?< It’s difficult to generalise on that one over a whole population! And it depends on what you mean by taboo. I recall a part-time teacher in the College I used to work at, a lovely young woman (in every sense) who told me how her drifting life in Jamaica was transformed when she became a born-again Christian. Why should I confront someone like that with logical arguments against her beliefs (which would have been a hopeless task anyway)? (At the same College a maths lecturer who happened to be the statistics expert for the Green Party attended Bible Studies classes — make of that what you will!) I also had a friend who on his retirement played organ at a Southwark church, ran the church choir, and looked after their finances. Why should I engage him in theological dispute? We just enjoyed our friendship on the level of mutual interests. Incidentally, there’s not much sign of reticence in this onslaught on a religious topic of the day from Matthew Parris in the Times last year: “…You are living, dear reader, at a watershed in human history. This is the century during which, after 2,000 years of what has been a pretty bloody marriage, faith and reason must agree to part, citing irreconcilable differences. So block your ears to the cooing voices on Thought for the Day, and choose your side. “‘But how can you be sure?’ Oh boy, am I sure. Oh great quivering mountains of pious mumbo-jumbo, am I sure. Oh fathomless oceans of sanctified babble, am I sure. Words cannot express my confidence in the answer to the question whether God cured a nun because she wrote a Pope’s name down. He didn’t. Mere language does no justice to my certainty about whether God might be waiting for the return to their Biblical lands of the Israelites, before arranging the Second Coming. He isn’t. “Shout it from the rooftops. Write it on walls. Carve it into rock. He didn’t. He isn’t. He won’t.” http://tinyurl.com/2hx3ty
Allen, I do know that the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’, BUT — for
twenty years I sang in the Gallery Choir of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Toronto, still occasionally referred to, forty years after his death, and to the insensate fury of the clergy, as ‘Healy Willan’s church’. For the last sixteen years of that time I was not a communicant, nor even a believer. There was a time when the clergy were most censorious of those who came to St. Mary Magdalene only for the music. They might have been less zealous had they realized that their censure covered at least fifty percent of the choir.
BTW, I hope that you all enjoyed a Salubrious Solstice, and will later have a Perfectly Peachy Perihelion.
Elliot: Just in case your anecdote was a direct allusion to my friend who played the church organ, etc, he was a “believer”! (Though in what precisely I never got around to asking. Being C of E covers a multitude of sins, as it were.)
And, though I fear my “singing” is not for public display, I confess a nostalgic enjoyment of some of the hymns we used to sing in the dim-distant time of my schooldays. Some great tunes! (And some dreary ones, of course.)
Yeah, I, also, once had a friend who played guitar in a folk choir at Southwark Cathedral.
The guitarist, by a daughter of charity, (who did parochial work in the church) was discouraged from befriending me, who was considered by the sister to be a mere nonentity.
All we ever did together was sing and play our guitars. The religious can be so cruel to those whom – by their own summation, they deem to be lower-class.
The guitarists’ twin sister (at only seventeen years old) joined an enclosed religious order in Sussex.
Perhaps the sister of St Vincent De Paul ascertained that her pride and joys’ sister would be contaminated, by association, if she (her sister) kept company with the likes of moi.
St Vincent De Paul’s basic vision was simply that the Good News of Jesus Christ should be announced to the poor through word and service.
Sorry about losing the ‘t’, Elliott. For the Freudian, the mistake would have some significance – an unconscious allusion to the Catholic T.S. possibly. For Sebastiano Timpanaro it would be an example of banalisation – writing a more familiar way of spelling a word.
Excellent critique of Sigmund’s “Freudian slip” contentions:
Timpanaro, S. *The Freudian Slip: Psychoanalysis and Textual Criticism*, Verso, 1985.
Hey, I don’t think this is about having religious disputes with your religious friends, though it might be called for from time to time, especially when the church comes out with something silly and intrusive.
Just bear in mind that ordinary believers are the foot-soldiers of the church militant, and the church is, despite the apparently inoffensive character of some believers, militant, intolerant, judgemental, dismissive, disparaging of non-believers, prone to intervene in policy decisions at a very high level.
I know lots of lovely people who are Christians, but I also know that they can be enlisted, every time a leader of their church speaks, into the forces of reaction. Sometimes, I think, it is to the point to address comments to ordinary believers who by their silent acquiescence enable the benighted policies of the churches. Even with your friends it is worthwhile raising concerns from time to time.
“Why should I engage him in theological dispute?”
I don’t think you should, necessarily. But I suppose I do think that ideally we should all feel able to do that if it comes up – and I don’t think we do.
This is if it comes up. I don’t particularly think we should feel able to pick fights with believing friends, apropos de bottes.
Of course, in my case, it often does (come up, that is). In fact, I’m usually put on the defensive. And I can give as good as I get. But I think it is probably a good idea to bring it up, when there seems to be a good reason for it.
Believers should be ready, as it says in 1 Peter, to give a reason for the hope that is in them, especially if that hope (and faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, according to Hebrews) is leading to particularly unlovely things.
And in my experience, believers are quite ready to speak of their faith; why should unbelievers not speak up for unbelief?
“And in my experience, believers are quite ready to speak of their faith; why should unbelievers not speak up for unbelief?”
I couldn’t agree more, Eric. If someone feels comfortable asserting their belief/s, why should I feel uncomfortable asserting a counter-belief? As long as I am courteous and warm, there shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, sometimes people get offended, cross and rude, regardless.
However, I should add I have also had many heartening discussions with New Agers, Christians and even a Muslim woman at the bus stop once. I think the good conversations make the ones that ended in aggression worthwhile.
This is what I’m saying. If believers speak of their ‘faith’ we should feel able to speak up too – but we don’t always feel able – because we know that people will get offended and cross.
O.B was there ever a time when people didnt go in for Goddy talk? hasnt it always been around at least in U.S politics? For example F.D.R J.F.K and Carter would often use it as did Reagan,Clinton and Bush.
P.S. In the case of my nephew, it would not be a matter of consideration of his feelings (I’m sure he’s love the battle), but that it would be unproductive.
>O.B. was there ever a time when people didnt go in for Goddy talk? hasnt it always been around at least in U.S politics?< On this I think we’re oceans apart – or, to be precise, one ocean. :-) When Neil Kinnock, as Labour Party leader, was within a whisker of becoming UK Prime Minister in 1992 it was never an issue that he was an atheist. Tony Blair has been an exception in wearing his religion on his sleeve, and he was sat upon by his chief advisor, who famously told him “We don’t do God”.
No, goddy talk hasn’t always been around in US politics. I don’t think it’s true that Kennedy ‘would often use it’ – I think he avoided it. I don’t think Johnson or Nixon used it either. The change came with Carter, and at the time that was a matter for much surprise and ridicule – but it turned out to be the thin end of the wedge.
“Her views are part of a deeply held belief system, and challenging any aspect of it would…be (in my view) inconsiderate on my part (because of its meaning for her)”
Yes – I know that feeling (or view). It works on me too. But I think it’s unfortunate (which is not to say that I think we should all override our tendencies to be considerate, just that it is unfortunate) because it means that people tend to be insulated from even realizing that their belief systems have flaws.
Alen I disagree, it was always a problem for Kinnock,his percieved atheism was one of the reasons the public never took to him, it also was a problem for him with the Labour party as well because Labour has a large and quite secterian christian wing. One of the main reasons for Blair,s overt christianity was because he wanted to avoid the same fate.
Richard,
While I agree that the Labour Party (or Old Labour, I guess) had a long association with religious belief and methodism in particular, I would say that it is now fairly clear that Blair reined in expressions of his religious inclinations. Maybe because, as Campbell clearly believed, UK voters see visible religiosity as creepy or maybe because Blair’s leanings were too High Church for the traditional’chapel’ Labour supporters.
I believe Kinnock is an agnostic. Has Clegg’s atheism been a problem? I regret that he felt it necessary to follow his casual mention of his atheism with a hasty ‘respect for belief’ statement, but I doubt if it will be an electoral issue.
>Alen I disagree, it was always a problem for Kinnock,his percieved atheism was one of the reasons the public never took to him, it also was a problem for him with the Labour party as well because Labour has a large and quite secterian christian wing.< You may well have a point, though I can only say that I don’t recall that being the case. On “his percieved atheism was one of the reasons the public never took to him…”: As an avid follower of politics, I cannot recall it ever coming up. There were, I think, reasons partly to do with his perceived personality why some sections of the public didn’t take to him, and it may well have been the infamous “triumphalist” Sheffield rally (widely perceived as a premature victory party) that tilted the electorate against Labour in 1992. P.S. Just to check if my memory is at fault, I’ve just done an extensive Google search of the political history of the relevant period, and can’t find any mention of religion in relation to Kinnock. Typically, this from the “Labour History Group”:
“Moreover, there was considerable evidence that Kinnock himself was disliked by many voters, who regarded him as a political lightweight, a ‘Welsh windbag,’ and/or a man who still secretly believed in left-wing extremism.”
http://www.labourhistory.org.uk/?p=24
And this from a New Statesman profile (in which again religion gets no mention):
“And he was told that his personality was wrong for the task. The noise, the passion, the bons mots, the houndstooth, they all had to go. He wrapped himself in grey flannel suits and grey woollen phrases. He gave up the simple, direct, passionate language that won hearts, and delivered his thoughts in vast, shapeless bundles of words.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/200602130017
Ophelia, re a “New Agey” friend’s views:
>But I think it’s unfortunate (which is not to say that I think we should all override our tendencies to be considerate, just that it is unfortunate) because it means that people tend to be insulated from even realizing that their belief systems have flaws.< Putting aside other considerations, the kind of person I have in mind just wouldn’t be influenced by the kind of criticisms I would make, because there’s a sense in which our ways of seeing the relevant phenomena are incommensurable. With an effort of will I think I can make a kind of gestalt switch, and see what it looks like from within the other person’s belief system. A lot of it is, I think, to do with a sense that the body has a kind of natural intelligence, and that modern medicine is too intrusive, and often counteracts the body’s ‘natural’ healing processes. Not for nothing is the viewpoint called “holistic”, which is why a criticism of any specific part of it is generally unavailing, as it doesn’t touch the fundamentals of the beliefs. Intuition (based on the above philosophy about what is ‘natural’) trumps scientific arguments.