Who cares if Britain isn’t a Christian country?28th January 2016 in London
Opening the debate, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford, questioned whether Britain had ever been a unitary Christian country. At least since 1656, “these islands have been officially multicultural.” Catholics were a persecuted minority and Protestantism was divided. This required the kind of compromise that forms the basis of parliamentary democracy. The Church can act as a “referee” between faiths, he said, “despite the present idiocies of the Church of England’s leadership,” adding that on sexuality, church leadership has been “wooden” and “unimaginative.”
Iain McLean, Professor of Politics at the University of Oxford, said that British Christians often diverged from their leaders: 80 per cent support assisted suicide, for example, in line with the population; 47 per cent support same-sex marriages compared with 60 per cent of non-Christians. It’s just that “those who are opposed tend to be fervently so.”
Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and Vice President of the British Humanist Association, said she “welcomed the decline of religious belief.” Religious schools were “profoundly divisive.” The presence of bishops in the House of Lords “makes us the only theocracy in the west.” She objected to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day for taking only the “mild and sweet voices” of faith.
Mona Siddiqui (above), Professor of Islamic and Inter-religious Studies at the University of Edinburgh, contended that Britain is still largely Christian, even though “religion has lost its public hold.” But Islam has recently been seen as a challenge with its “visible and awkward” practises. While once there was a “Jewish Question,” there is now a “Muslim Question,” with politicians loudly defending Christian heritage.
For Siddiqui, the rise of conservative Islam had brought the question of faith back into the public sphere. The urge for certainty was “frightening.” Toynbee complained she had been labelled “Islamophobe of the Year” for expressing the same critical views on Islam she had always held about Christianity. Siddiqui added she had been put on a list of top 10 Islamophobes. “I’m up there with Donald Trump,” she said to audience laughter. Toynbee and Siddiqui agreed that the term Islamophobia has ceased to be useful, and “shuts down debate.”
Picking up Siddiqui’s phrase about the “awkward” nature of Islam in Britain, Iain McLean said that there was some benefit in being part of the “awkward squad.” McLean, a Quaker, said that his religious group had a history of support for pacifism and conscientious objection.
MacCulloch said that cathedrals were having a revival—congregations were up 30 per cent. A spiritual urge still existed, and Anglicanism could fulfil it.
Does religion do more harm than good?16th February 2016 in Newcastle upon Tyne
Before asking whether religion does more harm than good, said Islam scholar Malise Ruthven in a debate chaired by Newcastle University’s Helen Berry, the word “religion” needed unpacking. Religion, Ruthven argued, was a category invented by the British in the 19th century to label the beliefs of colonised people. People didn’t think of themselves as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs before being described as such. The record of toleration of other beliefs in Islam had been good, he said, up to the modern era. Islamic extremism derives from the “huge pressures of the Enlightenment,” where modernity is being thrust on societies with older models of thought, at high speed and from a foreign—western—source.
“Religion cannot do anything,” said Tina Beattie, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Roehampton, “only people can act.” While Ruthven looked forward to secular values spreading, Beattie argued that Catholicism “should never catch up with the credo of autonomous individualism that is such an important part of the Enlightenment.” She praised Pope Francis for his “radical and unflinching” critique of modern capitalism, adding that, “if all faith activity stopped tomorrow, for millions of people there would be little or no access to education.” Still, she disagreed with the Catholic Church over sexual and reproductive rights.
Journalist David Aaronovitch (right) said he represented the “godless and the inexpert.” The “inexpressible mystery of life,” Beattie described was being solved by science. On whether religion did more harm than good, the answer was “it depends.” It was like asking whether “curiosity” did more harm than good. Religion can be “supremely damaging,” he said, with transcendent authority handed down by God to men with beards. On the other hand, he praised the work of religious groups caring for asylum-seekers and refugees. Ultimately, though, he would prefer we follow the secular ideals embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ian Reader, Professor Emeritus at the University of Manchester, said that “religion is a human product and it has all the problems of humanity associated with it.” Reader is an expert on the Tokyo Subway Attack of 1995 that killed 12 people. The Japanese religious cult which carried it out believed they were killing in order to save the world. “When you have the truth, anything is permitted.” Similar ideas were present in groups such as Islamic State (IS). But as to whether religion does more harm than good, the “answer is yes, no and maybe.”
Ruthven praised the Aga Khan’s Ismaili Muslim community for donating generously to charity. Beattie repeated that the Church spoke out on social justice. She would like it, she said, if bankers and corporate bosses would think: “You may go to hell if you continue behaving the way you do.” Aaronovitch said this was the language of the “elect and the damned.”
A questioner from the audience asked Beattie to explain the historical crimes of the Catholic Church—the crusades, child sex abuse. “You’re on your own,” quipped Aaronovitch to audience laughter. Beattie replied that the Crusades were from a different era, and that child abuse was a problem in all large institutions—though the Catholic Church had done a bad job of dealing with it, including the current Pope. Another questioner asked whether atheism was compatible with believing in an objective morality. “The answer is yes,” said Aaronovitch. “It is quite obvious. If you cannot conceive of an ethical order without supernatural power that’s your problem.” Another audience member stood up and described himself as a “committed Muslim.” He picked up Ruthven’s earlier point about the word deen in the Koran. “Don’t we all have to question whether our religion—or way of life—does more harm that good?”
Is true religion always extremist?3rd March 2016 in Belfast
“The pervasive late 20th-century social scientific assumption that religion, like nationalism, was facing a teleological decline, has duly been mocked by the Almighty,” said Richard English, Professor of Politics at the University of St Andrews. What he called the “bloodstained intersection of religion and political violence” has been on show recently. But is true religion always extremist? No, said English. In fact, religion can often restrain extremism: one reason why most people in Northern Ireland opposed militancy during the Troubles “was a set of religious beliefs that militated against violence.” And most Muslims opposed IS.
John Brewer, Professor of Post Conflict Studies at Queen’s University, Belfast, argued there were specific factors in “true religion” that allowed it to be used by violent extremists. Religion divided people into the righteous and unrighteous; classified a person or group as being outside moral boundaries; and claimed that its adherents were special. However, theologians have shown that religion can be a site of peace, justice and reconciliation. In Northern Ireland, it was religious “mavericks”—dissident priests, monasteries, faith-based NGOs—who initiated dialogue with militants. They helped to dismantle negative stereotypes. However, religion was never enough. There had to be a shift in the political dynamics to have an effect.
Innes Bowen, author of Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam, described how her research showed a complicated picture: conservative Muslims opposed to violence; evangelical Muslims; Sufi-influenced ones. “There are many schools of thought, and what the texts say does matter, but the interpretation is just as important.” Islam was evolving all the time.
Sometimes this evolution was in the wrong direction. Tehmina Kazi, from the organisation British Muslims for Secular Democracy, picked up on a troubling anecdote Bowen mentioned. In the previous few days, a number of mosques in Britain—including Sufi-orientated ones—have been mourning the execution of a Pakistani man called Mumtaz Qadri. In 2011, Qadri assassinated the Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who had become well-known for defending a Pakistani Christian woman accused of blasphemy.
Kazi, who describes herself as a Muslim reformer, was not optimistic about the state of Islam. Leaving the religion is a criminal offence in many Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Qatar. Kazi argued that little attention is given to reformers such as the Inclusive Mosque initiative, which is a pro-feminist, pro-LGBT Muslim group formed in London.
English made the important point that often what we define as extremism is “violence that affects us.” Bowen argued that in defining true religion as extremist, you are giving the believer the choice of either giving up his or her religion (unlikely) or becoming a radical. That was not a sensible solution. She agreed with Kazi: “Don’t generalise about a religious group, and do reach out to the people within those groups who are fighting a battle for moderation.”
Opening the debate, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford, questioned whether Britain had ever been a unitary Christian country. At least since 1656, “these islands have been officially multicultural.” Catholics were a persecuted minority and Protestantism was divided. This required the kind of compromise that forms the basis of parliamentary democracy. The Church can act as a “referee” between faiths, he said, “despite the present idiocies of the Church of England’s leadership,” adding that on sexuality, church leadership has been “wooden” and “unimaginative.”
Iain McLean, Professor of Politics at the University of Oxford, said that British Christians often diverged from their leaders: 80 per cent support assisted suicide, for example, in line with the population; 47 per cent support same-sex marriages compared with 60 per cent of non-Christians. It’s just that “those who are opposed tend to be fervently so.”
Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and Vice President of the British Humanist Association, said she “welcomed the decline of religious belief.” Religious schools were “profoundly divisive.” The presence of bishops in the House of Lords “makes us the only theocracy in the west.” She objected to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day for taking only the “mild and sweet voices” of faith.
Mona Siddiqui (above), Professor of Islamic and Inter-religious Studies at the University of Edinburgh, contended that Britain is still largely Christian, even though “religion has lost its public hold.” But Islam has recently been seen as a challenge with its “visible and awkward” practises. While once there was a “Jewish Question,” there is now a “Muslim Question,” with politicians loudly defending Christian heritage.
For Siddiqui, the rise of conservative Islam had brought the question of faith back into the public sphere. The urge for certainty was “frightening.” Toynbee complained she had been labelled “Islamophobe of the Year” for expressing the same critical views on Islam she had always held about Christianity. Siddiqui added she had been put on a list of top 10 Islamophobes. “I’m up there with Donald Trump,” she said to audience laughter. Toynbee and Siddiqui agreed that the term Islamophobia has ceased to be useful, and “shuts down debate.”
Picking up Siddiqui’s phrase about the “awkward” nature of Islam in Britain, Iain McLean said that there was some benefit in being part of the “awkward squad.” McLean, a Quaker, said that his religious group had a history of support for pacifism and conscientious objection.
MacCulloch said that cathedrals were having a revival—congregations were up 30 per cent. A spiritual urge still existed, and Anglicanism could fulfil it.
Does religion do more harm than good?16th February 2016 in Newcastle upon Tyne
Before asking whether religion does more harm than good, said Islam scholar Malise Ruthven in a debate chaired by Newcastle University’s Helen Berry, the word “religion” needed unpacking. Religion, Ruthven argued, was a category invented by the British in the 19th century to label the beliefs of colonised people. People didn’t think of themselves as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs before being described as such. The record of toleration of other beliefs in Islam had been good, he said, up to the modern era. Islamic extremism derives from the “huge pressures of the Enlightenment,” where modernity is being thrust on societies with older models of thought, at high speed and from a foreign—western—source.
“Religion cannot do anything,” said Tina Beattie, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Roehampton, “only people can act.” While Ruthven looked forward to secular values spreading, Beattie argued that Catholicism “should never catch up with the credo of autonomous individualism that is such an important part of the Enlightenment.” She praised Pope Francis for his “radical and unflinching” critique of modern capitalism, adding that, “if all faith activity stopped tomorrow, for millions of people there would be little or no access to education.” Still, she disagreed with the Catholic Church over sexual and reproductive rights.
Journalist David Aaronovitch (right) said he represented the “godless and the inexpert.” The “inexpressible mystery of life,” Beattie described was being solved by science. On whether religion did more harm than good, the answer was “it depends.” It was like asking whether “curiosity” did more harm than good. Religion can be “supremely damaging,” he said, with transcendent authority handed down by God to men with beards. On the other hand, he praised the work of religious groups caring for asylum-seekers and refugees. Ultimately, though, he would prefer we follow the secular ideals embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ian Reader, Professor Emeritus at the University of Manchester, said that “religion is a human product and it has all the problems of humanity associated with it.” Reader is an expert on the Tokyo Subway Attack of 1995 that killed 12 people. The Japanese religious cult which carried it out believed they were killing in order to save the world. “When you have the truth, anything is permitted.” Similar ideas were present in groups such as Islamic State (IS). But as to whether religion does more harm than good, the “answer is yes, no and maybe.”
Ruthven praised the Aga Khan’s Ismaili Muslim community for donating generously to charity. Beattie repeated that the Church spoke out on social justice. She would like it, she said, if bankers and corporate bosses would think: “You may go to hell if you continue behaving the way you do.” Aaronovitch said this was the language of the “elect and the damned.”
A questioner from the audience asked Beattie to explain the historical crimes of the Catholic Church—the crusades, child sex abuse. “You’re on your own,” quipped Aaronovitch to audience laughter. Beattie replied that the Crusades were from a different era, and that child abuse was a problem in all large institutions—though the Catholic Church had done a bad job of dealing with it, including the current Pope. Another questioner asked whether atheism was compatible with believing in an objective morality. “The answer is yes,” said Aaronovitch. “It is quite obvious. If you cannot conceive of an ethical order without supernatural power that’s your problem.” Another audience member stood up and described himself as a “committed Muslim.” He picked up Ruthven’s earlier point about the word deen in the Koran. “Don’t we all have to question whether our religion—or way of life—does more harm that good?”
Is true religion always extremist?3rd March 2016 in Belfast
“The pervasive late 20th-century social scientific assumption that religion, like nationalism, was facing a teleological decline, has duly been mocked by the Almighty,” said Richard English, Professor of Politics at the University of St Andrews. What he called the “bloodstained intersection of religion and political violence” has been on show recently. But is true religion always extremist? No, said English. In fact, religion can often restrain extremism: one reason why most people in Northern Ireland opposed militancy during the Troubles “was a set of religious beliefs that militated against violence.” And most Muslims opposed IS.
John Brewer, Professor of Post Conflict Studies at Queen’s University, Belfast, argued there were specific factors in “true religion” that allowed it to be used by violent extremists. Religion divided people into the righteous and unrighteous; classified a person or group as being outside moral boundaries; and claimed that its adherents were special. However, theologians have shown that religion can be a site of peace, justice and reconciliation. In Northern Ireland, it was religious “mavericks”—dissident priests, monasteries, faith-based NGOs—who initiated dialogue with militants. They helped to dismantle negative stereotypes. However, religion was never enough. There had to be a shift in the political dynamics to have an effect.
Innes Bowen, author of Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam, described how her research showed a complicated picture: conservative Muslims opposed to violence; evangelical Muslims; Sufi-influenced ones. “There are many schools of thought, and what the texts say does matter, but the interpretation is just as important.” Islam was evolving all the time.
Sometimes this evolution was in the wrong direction. Tehmina Kazi, from the organisation British Muslims for Secular Democracy, picked up on a troubling anecdote Bowen mentioned. In the previous few days, a number of mosques in Britain—including Sufi-orientated ones—have been mourning the execution of a Pakistani man called Mumtaz Qadri. In 2011, Qadri assassinated the Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who had become well-known for defending a Pakistani Christian woman accused of blasphemy.
Kazi, who describes herself as a Muslim reformer, was not optimistic about the state of Islam. Leaving the religion is a criminal offence in many Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Qatar. Kazi argued that little attention is given to reformers such as the Inclusive Mosque initiative, which is a pro-feminist, pro-LGBT Muslim group formed in London.
English made the important point that often what we define as extremism is “violence that affects us.” Bowen argued that in defining true religion as extremist, you are giving the believer the choice of either giving up his or her religion (unlikely) or becoming a radical. That was not a sensible solution. She agreed with Kazi: “Don’t generalise about a religious group, and do reach out to the people within those groups who are fighting a battle for moderation.”
