Religious diversity won't work without reasserting the liberal essentials. But let's not confuse secularism with atheism
Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday November 29, 2007
The Guardian
A great debate of our time concerns how people with different religions, ethnicities and values can live together as full citizens of free societies. Here's the common thread that runs through half-a-dozen news stories every day. Yesterday, for example: a schoolteacher arrested and charged in Sudan for allowing children to call a teddy bear Muhammad; the poor, ethnically mixed housing estates around Paris going up in smoke again; Israel-Palestine peace talks, with their implications for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere; a Jewish school in London criticised for insisting that for a child to qualify for admission the applicant's mother had to be born Jewish; angry scenes in Oxford as a student debating society offers a platform to a Holocaust denier.
A large part of this debate is about the position of Muslims in Europe, but it's important to remember that the issues are much wider. Recently, discussion of Muslims in Europe has crystallised around a few personalities, including some views attributed to me. Such a personalisation of the issues helps to dramatise them, but it also risks disappearing down obscure polemical back alleys of the "who did or did not say what about whom" variety. It's probably more useful to put personalities aside for the moment and restate some of the basics of the secular liberal position that I propose. Obviously I can't spell this out in a single column - that needs a book - but here are just a few of the bare bones.
Muslims start from Islam. Liberals start from liberalism. I'm a liberal, so I start from liberalism - not in the parody version propagated by the American right, but liberalism properly understood as a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual human freedom, compatible with the freedom of others. I believe that, faced with the challenges of growing diversity, we, the citizens, need to agree and spell out more clearly the essentials of a free society. A charter of citizens' rights and duties, as proposed by Gordon Brown, would be one way to take this forward.
Among the essentials is freedom of expression, which has been eroded to an alarming degree, both by death threats from extremists and by misconceived pre-emptive appeasement on the part of the state and private bodies. Freedom of expression necessarily includes the right to offend; not the duty, but the right. We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence). We may not agree with what controversialists say about these figures but we must defend to the death their right to say it. There should, for obvious reasons, be limits to what we are free to say about living people, but these limits must be very tightly drawn.
Among the liberal essentials is equality before the law, including equal rights for men and women. Among the essentials is also freedom of religion. Since a core liberal notion is that we must be free not just to pursue our own version of the good life but also to question and revise it, it follows that we must be free to propagate, question, change or abandon our religion. In a free society, proselytisation, heresy and apostasy are not crimes. This - and apostasy in particular - is not accepted in many versions of Islam, but it is a liberal essential on which there can be no compromise.
In order to secure these freedoms, we need a secular public sphere. But what exactly do we mean by that? To say "Enlightenment values" begs the question, "which Enlightenment"? The Enlightenment of John Locke, which claimed freedom for religion, or that of Voltaire, which aspired rather to freedom from religion? (I deliberately simplify a complex history.) A liberal order in which the devotees of all Gods are free to try their hand in the public square, on an equal footing with those who insist - correctly, in my view - that there is no God? Or a liberal order in which all gods are kept as far as possible out of the public square? (The French republican understanding of laïcité is closer to the latter, the United States' first amendment tradition to the former.) I'm more of a Lockean myself, but I don't think this debate is best pursued at the abstract, theoretical level of "which Enlightenment"? Better to tackle specific issues: faith schools, new mosques, the teaching of evolution, the hijab, Muhammad cartoons and so on.
We do, however, need to be clearer about the difference between secularism and atheism. Secularism, in my view, should be an argument about arrangements for a shared public and social life; atheism is an argument about scientific truth, individual liberation and the nature of the good life. Today's debate around Islam is bedevilled by a confusion between the two. Atheists must be free to say to Muslims, Christians or Jews: "Your mind would be much more free if you gave up your ridiculous belief in God." Believers must be free to argue back: "You would have a more profound sense of personal freedom if you did believe." But neither is entitled to demand that of the other as a condition for participating as a citizen in a free society. The public policy argument about freedom for religion and the private conviction argument about freedom from or in religion should operate on different levels.
That distinction would, of course, no longer hold if being a devout Muslim were in fact incompatible with being a full citizen of a free society. I feel this is what quite a few participants in the current debate, both atheist and Christian, really believe, while seldom spelling it out so clearly. Yet the thought keeps peeping through, for example in the formula "Islam is incompatible with democracy". But as a non-Muslim I can only agree with the author Edward Mortimer who, in his book Faith and Power, concluded that there is no single, unchanging Islam, "there is only what I hear Muslims say, and see them do". What Muslims say and do in the name of Islam has varied enormously through history, and varies enormously today. Yes, of course, there is the Qur'an and the Hadith, just as there is the Bible. But, as in all great religions, these are complex texts, subject to diverse interpretations.
When a Muslim letter-writer in yesterday's Guardian tells us, with the aid of Qur'anic references, that Islam, properly understood, supports "the vital principle of freedom of speech", what possible interest have we non-Muslim liberals in arguing against him? If a Christian supports the rule of law, as we understand it in a 21st-century secular liberal state, we don't cry: "But your Old Testament says 'life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth'!" Unless, of course, an atheist agenda - to show that religion is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense - trumps the secular liberal agenda, which is to find the ways in which people with different beliefs can live together peacefully in freedom.
Well, I have run out of space, and I have barely begun. There is so much else that needs saying. All comments are welcome and let's continue this vital conversation
www.timothygartonash.com
Comments
jihadisbad
November 29, 2007 12:53 AM
'I'm a liberal, so I start from liberalism - not in the parody version propagated by the American right, but liberalism properly understood as a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual human freedom, compatible with the freedom of others.'
Yet you support an institution, the EU, that increasingly aims to take away individual freedom, including the right to criticize religion.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
englishhermit
November 29, 2007 1:14 AM
"What does a free society require of believers and non-believers alike?"
In a free society everyone can do whatever or be whoever they like as long as they cause harm to no one. So, it all boils down to the definition of harm, which my dictionary (Concise Oxford) defines as as a physical injury or that which has an actual or potential ill effect. A physical injury is easy. No beating each other up or worse.
The definition of an ill effect is more problematic, in fact, it becomes a nightmare. Should a moral wrong be included? Well, yes. However there will be many differences in and shades of opinion. If this issue is going to be resolved then an agreement will have to be reached and a legally enforceable moral code drawn up.
I was brought up on 'sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.' Yet it is apparent in these more multi culturally sensitive times that name calling does hurt and can cause ill effects to people. This issue will run and run because agreement cannot be reached.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
sbgman
November 29, 2007 2:03 AM
This subject is difficult at best, as where to draw lines in terms of moral requirements is always to a degree subjective. I would be interested in Mr. Ash's take on John Rawls' ideas of the place of comprehensive concepts in a politically liberal society to provide freedom of belief to all citizens of that society with diverse beliefs. If I understand Rawls on this, there would be a spectrum of such societies depending on factors such as history of the people, physical attributes of the country, etc.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
followyourheart
November 29, 2007 3:08 AM
"freedom of religion."
An oxymoron, surely?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
GivePieceAChance
November 29, 2007 3:12 AM
A badly flawed essay. My comments follow.
TGA: "I start from liberalism ... properly understood as a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual human freedom, compatible with the freedom of others."
That is not liberalism but Libertarianism stated in language reminiscent of Jeremy Bentham.
TGA: "Freedom of expression necessarily includes the right to offend; not the duty, but the right."
Not necessarily. How about freedom of expression combined with a reasonable degree of respect for others?
TGA: "We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence)."
How can one test the claim that Jesus is or is not divine?
TGA: "In a free society, proselytisation, heresy and apostasy are not crimes. This - and apostasy in particular - is not accepted in many versions of Islam, but it is a liberal essential on which there can be no compromise."
The statement "there can be no compromise" is also the position taken by the enemies of liberalism as you define it. You are tipping your hand here.
TGA: "In order to secure these freedoms, we need a secular public sphere."
??? The UK is not a secular state. Do you propose to disestablish the Church of England?
TGA: "A liberal order in which the devotees of all Gods are free to try their hand in the public square"
That worked well in ancient Alexandria.
TGA: "atheism is an argument about scientific truth, individual liberation and the nature of the good life."
Actually, atheism is irrational hostility to religion masquerading as scientific truth.
TGA: "If a Christian supports the rule of law, as we understand it in a 21st-century secular liberal state, we don't cry: "But your Old Testament says 'life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth'!"
Actually, the Old Testament is Jewish and not Christian. It was written centuries before the Christian Era. The rule of law is intended to be institutionalized vengeance seeking, which means it is intellectually rooted in the Old Testament, even though western countries no longer institutionalize lapidations.
TGA: "Unless, of course, an atheist agenda - to show that religion is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense - trumps the secular liberal agenda, which is to find the ways in which people with different beliefs can live together peacefully in freedom."
You have finally arrived at the crux of your thesis. Methinks it is the atheist agenda that you support, and that you use the liberal agenda as a sheepskin.
I am a liberal and I do not recognize myself in your arguments.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
theoffendedblogger
November 29, 2007 3:13 AM
I completely agree, we must fight to the death to defend ALL people freedom of speech, whether that speech offends us or not.
While I am all for protecting any human being from cruel treatment, I do have a real problem with laws being passed to protect religious, sexual and ethnic minorities from simply being "offended in public".
This is a slippery slope. There are far too many things to get offended over these days, you can hardly leave the house without either offending or being offended.
Also, this only leaves the white, straight, Christian male without protection. I thought the liberal agenda was supposed to be love, peace, tolerance and equality for ALL people?
I guess white, straight, Christian males aren't human.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
watermelon
November 29, 2007 3:29 AM
Not a bad description, and while I am an atheist (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Religion/) I defend to the death Timothy's liberal view "which is to find the ways in which people with different beliefs can live together peacefully in freedom." Problem is, while atheists don't really care much what people believe in the privacy of their homes (same as our attitude to sex), the reverse is not true. Being an atheist excludes you from being part of society (and almost certainly will result in your death in most) in almost all Middle Eastern countries and the US. One of the most frightening aspects of the rise of the Religious right in America is the absolute inability of an atheist to attain political office there now, and I suspect this position may come in other liberal democracies sooner rather than later. It is really the Algerian problem writ large - do you allow to come to power, in a democratic process, a group who will destroy democracy? What becomes of the secular/liberal/atheist democracy which includes a majority of groups who are interested in imposing their own religious beliefs and practices in a totalitarian society?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Kimpatsu
November 29, 2007 3:32 AM
"We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi..."
Um, the first two are fictional, not historical, characters. Both are distillations of earlier Egyptian and Babylonian myths, with Greco-Romanism thrown in for Jesus. Muhammed was a real person, but never performed any miracles and was good at revisionism when it suited him personally.
Anyway, everyone with half a brain knows that secularism and atheism are different. Secularism is the separation of church and state, so there are plenty of religious people who support secularism. Atheism is the rational conclusion drawn from examining the evidence for the existence of god(s).
Atheism is rational, but secularism assures freedom for all, and so is the sine qua non of a free society. Until we achieve it, Britain will never be a truly free country.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DavidPollock
November 29, 2007 4:26 AM
Three cheers for Timothy Garton Ash and a well argued statement which happens, as a matter of fact, to be exactly in line with the thinking of the British Humanist Association.
Freedom of religion and belief - to adopt, hold or quit any religious or non-religious belief you will - is an essential human right. A secular state is the best guarantee of religious freedom. The alternative - by definition - is a state that is biased towards one or another religion or belief.
In a secular state public debate should be conducted as far as possible in shared terms. Those who come into the public forum speaking in terms unique to their own beliefs may command respect in the sense of respect for their right to free speech but they cannot expect to persuade or even to be understood. (At most we may take assertions based purely on their own beliefs as indicating a potential pragmatic difficulty if they are ignored in our eventual solution.)
But a secular state is not an atheist state. Atheists cannot expect to be persuasive if their arguments depend on atheist premises any more than Christians can with Christian premises.
Nor is a secular state a humanist state - except in the sense that it is the sort of state that humanists support and strive to establish: one where people of all beliefs, not just humanists, are equally free to hold and manifest their beliefs and where no group has any privileged position.
Part of the problem today is that followers of the main non-Christian religions by and large attach much greater importance to their religion as a factor in their self-identity than does the bulk of the Christian / unbelieving public (research has shown this - see Home Office Research Study 274: Religion in England and Wales: findings from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey - March 2004) so that when Muslims in particular, for understandable social and political reasons, assert their grievances they tend to do so in religious language and by making religious claims.
Another large part of the problem is that the Government is pursuing an course directly away from the goal of a secular society with its agenda of deliberate bias towards religion on a wide front, from faith schools to contracting out public services to religious groups (at great risk to the rights of both employees and clients - see the BHA report launched yesterday - http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2398 ), from government grants to religious bodies specifically to help them to be more influential in public debate ("capacity building") to constant use of the narrow term 'faith' (as in 'faith communities') - a term that includes all religions but excludes non-religious beliefs such as Humanism or plain agnostic good will - rather than the inclusive 'religion and belief' (or even 'religion and non-religious belief'), which they continue to do in outright defiance not only of an explicit Parliamentary recommendation (from the CLG committee - see their carefully obtuse response at http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/publications/local_government_committee.pdf - rec. 16 on page 16) but also of their own legislation in the Human Rights Act (section 6 prohibits public authorities from discrimination based on religion or belief).
One last part of the problem is that the Christian religion has been so privileged in the past and is so privileged still that many Christians find it difficult to see criticism of their privileges for what it is and instead take it as an attack on their beliefs or an insult to their religion. If your church is built into the very constitution, if Parliament has 26 seats specifically guaranteed for your representatives, if 1 in 3 schools is paid for by the taxpayer explicitly to deliver a Christian education, if the BBC provides many hours every week of specifically Christian broadcasting by Christians for Christians, if Christian clergy are paid for by the taxpayer to promote your religion in universities, the services, hospitals and prisons, and if the very word 'Christian' is still often taken as a synonym for 'good' or 'virtuous', then criticism of the way things are and demands for fairness and equality in a secular state must be hard to take. But this is a matter of psychological adjustment, indignant protests are not argument, and advocates of secularism, equality, non-discrimination and fairness need to respond firmly but politely to Bishop Nazir Ali and Archbishop Sentamu that they should remove the planks from their eyes before they allege that we have splinters in ours.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 4:53 AM
"We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence)."
There is no historical evidence for Moses or Jesus for claims to be tested against so Hitchens's Law applies (That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence) in these cases as Kimpatsu has mentioned.
Much of the Muslim world is clearly 'guilty' of idolatry with regard to the Prophet Mohammed as they seem to act as if he was a god himself. Many Christians are no less idolatrous themselves with their worship of the "Virgin Mary" character. But this does not excuse the silliness going on in Sudan any more than it excused the silliness that went on in Europe over Salman Rushdie's books.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
JamesBrodie
November 29, 2007 5:06 AM
Dear Timothy,
I enjoyed reading your article about a free society in The Guardian today, and appreciated your clarification of the term, 'secular'.
In discussing the Rule of Law, I wish to point out that, while the Western system of Law is very much based on the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament (pre-Christian) it is even more firmly based on the teachings of the New Testament (The words of Christ and his early followers), which leans more towards 'grace' (forgiveness) than 'judgement' (punishment). Jesus made it very clear that "An eye for an eye, etc." was to be superseded with "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy enemy", so it is inaccurate to associate "An eye with an eye" with Christianity, which foremost teaches the words of Christ.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DPavett
November 29, 2007 6:00 AM
I found this article very clear and a useful restatement of liberal secularism. I am not convinced that there is as much confusion about the issues as TGA suggests but it is good to have the basics outlined again.
Here are a few further clarifications.
"Muslims start from Islam. Liberals start from liberalism."
As TGA says believers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Many people who routinely are described as Christians, Muslims etc, and who think of themselves as such, can hardly be said to "start from" their religion. For large numbers it is a point of identity but not the main driving force in their lives. As TGA says elsewhere in the piece we must be careful to avoid excessive generalisation.
TGA says that atheists and believers should be free to hold their views and to criticise each other but not to require conformity to the strictures of a thought system as a condition for participating in the public sphere. I couldn't agree more but who are the liberals in the UK who seriously doubt this?
After useful reiterating a basic distinctions between different understandings of secularism TGA says
"That distinction would, of course, no longer hold if being a devout Muslim were in fact incompatible with being a full citizen of a free society. I feel this is what quite a few participants in the current debate, both atheist and Christian, really believe, while seldom spelling it out so clearly."
I am surprised by this take on the issue. There are atheists and Christians who make a claim something like this in debates about religion. Let's face it there are atheists who believe the devout Christians can't treat women as equals (because of St Paul). This is quite a different matter from denying the right of Muslims and Christians to participate in the public sphere as democrats, or Christians as believers in equal opportunity. This seems to indicate some tension between different threads of TGAs position.
Furthermore the claim that devout Muslims cannot participate in democracy is usually, in my experience, made when discussing Muslim countries and their political problems rather than about the possibility of Muslims participating in democracy in the UK. In fact I am not sure that I have ever hear the latter comment from an atheist or a Christian.
There is another twist to this latter point. The only people I have heard claim that Muslims cannot participate in democracy in the UK, and I have heard it several times, have been Muslims. They were Muslims with what most people, and I suspect most Muslims, would regard as having a narrow-minded interpretation of their faith. All the same it should be stated that opposition to Muslim participation in democracy is possibly stronger within the Muslim community than outside it. Certainly secularists should have no doctrinal reason to take this view whereas some Muslims feel that Islam gives them doctrinal reasons for doing so.
Anyway, a good article and I hope there will be an equally clarifying discussion.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Teacup
November 29, 2007 6:06 AM
Yes, I agree that free speech should not be abraded. There is room for courtesy, however. Why should any WANT to offend another for any reason. What was the purpose of those stupid and humourless Danish cartoons? They had a right to be published, but it was a an act of meanness to do so.
At the risk of being called anti-Jewish, does this freedom of expression extends to glorifying Hitler and wearing Nazi-symbol t-shirts? Or are some sensibilities more important than others?
Kimpatsu,
Good point about mythical and real people.
JamesBrodie,
I wish the self-styled leader of the free world shared your ideas of what marks Christianity. The world would have been a different place today.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
mayormccheese
November 29, 2007 6:55 AM
The United States has developed a way to make stem cells out of toe nail clippings. Why? Because we're all a bunch of religious nuts.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
kykcrzy
November 29, 2007 7:24 AM
Freedom is a much abused and maligned term, unfortunately, given it's fundamental nature. We are all free, necessarily by the fact that we are human, and to be human means to be a free agent, an agent with a will with self-control and moral responsibility. The consequence of such is simply that there is nowhere else to start from: we are all free, whatever moral code we choose to subscribe to, whichever political party we choose to vote for. "Islamists" (however much I abhor that term) are as free as anyone else by the very fact that they are humans.
To conflate atheism with science is very poor thinking indeed, it is possible to arrive at an atheistic position by reason alone without requiring any empirical evidence. After all, how could "eternal life" be meaningful in any sense of the words as we understand them?
In the end, a free society requires exactly the same thing from everybody, a respect for what it means to be a human being. Belief is irrelevant, as it should be, simply because the diversity of belief is enormous, even amongst existentialists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
PeterDavison
November 29, 2007 7:34 AM
A sane argument for an open society. However, you misinterpret "an eye for an eye...etc.". This was not an incitement to revenge, but rather a prohibition against exacting more in punishment than the original offence took. It is part of the Judaeo-Christian mainstream which seeks to de-escalate conflict. It would appear we need not only a dialogue between different belief systems, but also a reminder of how at least two currents within contemporary society are at work in our conversations: one is what we tend to call "fundamentalism" (whether religious or secular)which, roughly speaking, manifests itself in quoting passages out of context and without serious interpretation; another is the widespread ignorance of the traditions we so easily criticise. It is not simply ideas in the abstract we are dealing with, but the need to engage in real conversation with one another - and that demands mutual respect, a willingness to acknowledge the paradoxical nature of truth, and a refusal to be trapped by ideology, which is invariably "either...or", rather than "both...and" in its formulation. But thank you for a generally helpful piece.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Plataea
November 29, 2007 8:25 AM
Deleted by moderator
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
usini
November 29, 2007 9:12 AM
I agree with you Mr. Ash. I think the vital text for me here is Elizabeth's "I would not make windows into men's souls". I do not believe and do not care what others believe, and wish them to extend the same courtesy to me.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
muscleguy
November 29, 2007 9:22 AM
Well said Mr Garton Ash, it needs saying more often and louder that the secular space benefits everybody, especially the religious. It evolved in this society as a result of needing to end centuries of conflict between Anglicans, Catholics and various Dissenting denominations. There were no atheists worth mentioning then and in fact as Jonathon Miller taught us in his Brief History of Disbelief it was illegal to be an atheist.
So it is actually rather sad that it often seems to be us atheists who stand as the last defenders of secularism. We are not claiming a territory for ourselves. We are trying to hold open a public space where everybody can come and converse about the things which matter to all of us. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs all should value that space. But when we see mobs attacking it whether it be in the form of Jerry Springer the Opera or Beshti they are hurting themselves far more than the wider society as they are demonstrating that their minds are closed to the reality of the secular space.
That reality includes the freedom not to watch, read, listen or attend things that might offend you. I do not spend my Sunday mornings haranguing the elderly parishioners who file in and out of the Kirks in ever decreasing numbers. I respect their right to spend that time on their knees if they want. I value my freedom to spend that time running long distance. I just wish I was allowed to go to the supermarket afterwards and buy a bottle of wine along with Sunday lunch. I fail to see how my doing so harms you. Where do we meet to discuss these issues? in the secular space called politics.
So Believers everywhere wake up! the secular is your best protection, from each other. Do we need another 30years war?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Heresiarch
November 29, 2007 9:49 AM
"Obviously I can't spell this out in a single column - that needs a book"
I look forward to reading it.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
koskicot
November 29, 2007 9:59 AM
TGA says that he belives in "liberalism properly understood as a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual human freedom, compatible with the freedom of others"
Would that be a freedom for others to pass wealth and privilege down the generations? A freedom for others that allows the rich to exploit their advantage in "free" markets?
Freedom of expression is a fine ideal, but in reality its another slight of hand. Say what you like as long as no one can hear as all mass outlets are rigerously controlled and the views of the powerful will always prevail.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TonyChinnery
November 29, 2007 10:07 AM
Dear Timothy,
If we look at history we see that religion and war have always been associated. We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the main purpose of religion is war. Ever since groups of humans have been fighting for territory, we have been creating ways of dividing each other into groups. Two groups can only go to war if there is an unequivocal divide between them. And religion, the unshakable belief in some nonsense, has been the preferred method. Thus protestants versus catholics in Northern Ireland (two sects of the same religion!) Muslims versus Hindus in India, Jews versus muslims in Palestine etc. etc. . When it comes to war we label people by their religion.
With religion we are plunged back into an age old scenario, which seems absurd in todays' global world.
And to have allowed the creation of a state for Jews in a multi-ethnic corner of the world ensures a never ending state of war. The Jews are reliving a mythological biblical age of the embattled Jewish tribe fighting for survival.
I believe we must recognize the essentially evil nature of religion itself.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MiskatonicUniversity
November 29, 2007 10:08 AM
If I've got a criticism, it is that is seems a rather atomised view - the individual versus the state.
People act at a lot of different levels. Where does the author stand on say schools to promote one particular ideology? Or closing their local community swimming pool on Sunday as the majority think it should be a no-fun zone?
They pay their taxes, do they have the right to do so?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ChooChoo
November 29, 2007 10:13 AM
hey Woolly! Seriously duderino, can we cut a deal? You promise to drop, to stay mute on the historicity of Jesus stuff for a week and I'll do the same for the Pius XII clarifications. Pllllleeeeeeaaaasssse! It seems a fair deal to me: both topics are things which, respectively, you and I go on and on about. A one week armistice?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
lascoma
November 29, 2007 10:22 AM
Professor, that is just more the reason that organized religion should be banned and abolished. Just imagine that if these indifferences did not exit and the hierarchy of religion did not meddle with peoples minds, impose all the rituals, misled the gullible the world will be a much better place. Let people believe in what they want, but keep is personal without imposing onto others, and the world will get along much better.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
xtremeangry
November 29, 2007 10:23 AM
Religion was created as a controlling mechanism for the majority, usually those that are poor and with no chance off betterment in this world.I have lived and worked in many islamic countries,and I am presently living and working in Indonesia.There are several common factors throughout the islamic world.Indoctrination from an early age via faith schools.A total misunderstanding off the koran written in arabic read by mullars and a congregation totally ignorant of the actual readings.Also on a social bases the sexes are seperated for worship.Also female subservience the norm.I might add however it as been my experience that the females in these countries are more intelligent than there male counterparts,and are harder working.If what I have written seems familier it a reflection of how the christian community in europe were 500 years ago.As a final point can I just say I am sick and tired of peoples from all religions thrusting there archaic uneducated beliefs down my throat daily.When are we athiests going to be represented and the true enlightenment begin.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
lookbeforeyouleap
November 29, 2007 10:28 AM
A utopic idealist, if I may coin a phrase. The author actually describes normal life as I have known it most of my life everywhere until the Orient began to observe their inferior economic and political clout on the global scene and rebelled. Can you blame them?
Alas, successive inept Western leaders gravely misread the signs at the outset and never managed to recuperate ground by swiftly changing course to correct the skew. Now, onto this abstract topic 'Religion'.
Yawn! Every nation has always come along with its own specific culture and sets of mores - call them ethics, morals, beliefs, ideals or just 'a book of manners'. Nobody much cared, on the surface, and the 'live and let live' principle ruled cheerfully. So, how did things take this extraordinary dark turn, when people have stopped minding their own business and started to mind everybody else's till Kingdom come. One hopes not and that common sense, enlightenment or, call it what you will, might prevail.
So, the author, if I may be pardoned the indiscreet comment, is kind of banging his / her head against the wall. Why so? The key phrase is 'living together in peaceful co-existence'. This requires an equal level of education. It requires having similar economic weight. It requires the art of self-confidence for those who now feel weaker and humility and understanding for those of us who start from a stronger starting point.
It's not as rhetorical as it sounds, I'm afraid. Just a pause for reflection. By the way, 'thickness' and 'ignorance', alas, are also too prevalent on the side that screams 'Freedom, Freedom, till the Kingdom Come!' Freedom is an enviable right that generations have fought bravely for and that must never be relinquished but defining Freedom or Freedoms is the difficult part of it.
What is 'peaceful co-existence', by the way? It is a topic which should be considered in depth and with true sincerity. It's not a concept that should be taken lightly. By nature, human beings 'close ranks' at all levels. It is wonderful to share experiences, time and whatever with as many cultures as possible. It is commendable to travel, visit places and mingle with others and to grow in mutual understanding and respect. At the end of the day, nevertheless, argue as much as you will, one needs to return home - to the normality of one's own style and among those who can share one's joys and sorrows, one's fears and one's humour in an element of total familiarity.
Thus, in conclusion, the answer to our common dilemma is that one's country must never be allowed to be usurped by 'others' whoever they are, however well-meaning and laudable they are, simply because it's not their country and have no right to dictate that its inhabitants begin to alter their raison d'etre to suit themselves whether in terms of buildings, infrastructure, education, socialisation, creed or anything else. I'm not talking codswallop as if you bother to open your eyes, all countries still 'close ranks' and, in the most threatened situations, they still 'close ranks' to do their damndest to assert the birth rights of their domain. Right? Perhaps, it's not too late and we, too, in the UK should have the will and the strength to say 'Enough is enough. Re-trace your steps, retract, or whatever - THIS IS MY HOME. I MAKE THE RULES.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
realtheologik
November 29, 2007 10:38 AM
"We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence)."
Can we please add the disclaimer [historical figures according to the vast majority of qualified historians] to shut up the "Jesus didn't exist" conspiracy theorists up so they don't ruin the discussion?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
theendarm
November 29, 2007 10:41 AM
thank you for your lecture mr TGA
the kind of secularism I prefer is one which give equal expression to both faith and disbelieve -
the issues your cite regarding Islam are largely academic - there is no compulsion in matters of religion - the issue of apostasty only applied for acts of treason against the state.
as for freedom of expression - I have read salmon rushdie the satanic verses - it is a deeply insulting book to muslims and I am afraid your limits to freedom of expression should accomodate this.other wise you having it all your own way and as you know you do not control the agenda - there is a islamic narrative - your not listening - most of your views on Islam are based on a straw man view of Islam- if you continue in the current vein society will be divided between people of faith v people of doubt - bottom line - I am happy to live with you but don`t impose your atheism on me - YOUR CANNOT PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST?
if you want peace in our time - a little bit of respect all round would not go a miss.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Brusselsexpats
November 29, 2007 10:46 AM
I promise not to call my teddy "Gordon".
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
finniestoncrane
November 29, 2007 10:47 AM
"Among the liberal essentials is equality before the law, including equal rights for men and women. Among the essentials is also freedom of religion."
Alas, most religions don't allow for the equal rights of women, so any decent secular society must have at its fundament a commitment to ensuring religion is kept out of public life.
http://thepamphleteeruk.blogspot.com/
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
joseph1832
November 29, 2007 10:50 AM
"I'm a liberal, so I start from liberalism..."
Does Mr Garton Ash mean that he subscribes to a particular creed and works out his views by reference to that creed? Maybe I am taking too literal a view, but there are more than enough liberal thinkers who do just such a thing. It leads inexorably to an ossification of thought and intolerance of disagreement. The tenets of liberalism and its sacred texts (eg: Rawls and that silly curtain of ignorance) are treated in the same way as believers treat religious texts. In the end, what started as an attempt to liberate thought degenerates to dogma.
I know Mr Garton Ash is trying hard to persuade society away from this sort of trap. But he should watch out unless he falls into it himself.
As for Islamic scholars trying to assimilate Islam to human rights ideology, at best they create a new sect within Islam which may or may not triumph. We gain nothing to say, "they are wrong", but it seems foolish to assume that they have somehow tapped into the "true Islam", and all practices to the contrary are a "warped" form of Islam, even if they are more generally held. We can wish such scholars luck, but we cannot assume that they are , a) right within the framework of Islamic theology, or, b) bound to succeed. I suspect they will fail badly. As with all attempts to put in practice Charles Taylor's theory of unforced convergence in human rights, it is probably just an intellectually dishonest conjuring trick that fools no one apart from those who desparately want it to succeed.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
stevenlmeyer
November 29, 2007 10:51 AM
I'm gobsmacked!
For the first time ever I find myself in complete agreement with a Guardian columnist.
I mean TOTAL agreement.
No qualifications.
A well written column
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Waltz
November 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Excellent article, Mr. G.A.
One comment though:
"When a Muslim letter-writer in yesterday's Guardian tells us, with the aid of Qur'anic references, that Islam, properly understood, supports "the vital principle of freedom of speech", what possible interest have we non-Muslim liberals in arguing against him?"
The problem here is not the sentiment itself but its basis. It's good news when religious people (whether Muslim, Christian, or whatever) arrive at interpretations that are compatible with secular liberalism, but because the starting point is religious doctrine and not pragmatic reasoning the underlying problem remains: namely, that the benchmark is some ancient religious text which can be interpreted with equal justification in many far less positive ways. So long as the notion persists that ideas/practices are acceptable only if an ancient religious text can be understood to condone them, the underlying problem remains unchanged.
We cannot, of course, eradicate religious belief. But we can - as your article says - put it in its place and constrain its influence upon and authority over wider society.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
quirky
November 29, 2007 10:56 AM
A very good article, TGA.
One clarification is needed however about the Mosaic eye for eye, tooth for tooth reference. Unfortunately, we're all brought up to believe the Christian view that the Old Testament was inferior hence superseded by the New Testament. At the time, however, it was a vast improvement over earlier laws because it meant the substitution of legal punishment exactly equivalent to the injury, rather than an immediate act of revenge as under the Hammurabi Code.
Also, when compared to the Christian injunction : love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc., it's obvious that the Mosaic Code was far more practical and realistic. At any rate, it was made the basis of international law by men like Hugo Grotius and Jean Bodin.
As for secular humanism - which I agree is the best philosophy - we've yet to discover a way to educate and instil our children with it as effectively as with religious indoctrination.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Justabloke
November 29, 2007 10:57 AM
A secular approach has no proven sustainability, look around. It has no logical, intellectual or theological credibility.
The only long term hope for the eradication of faith-based conflict is the elimination of faith.
Faith-based organisations should have no role in government or public life. There should be no expectation of respect for barbaric and inhuman practices - even if they are based in faith.
We should regard people, not myths, as the true value.
When atheists argue for secularism and acceptance of faith, they are simply accepting the perpetuation of suffering.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ubrben
November 29, 2007 11:02 AM
@ realtheologik
History's hardly an objective discipline is it. It's generally about wars and is generally written by the winners.
It's not open to testing hypotheses. I reckon that Stonehenge was viewed by most people at the time like most of us viewed the Millenium Dome, can't prove it of course :-p
Ben
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
SeaBreeze
November 29, 2007 11:05 AM
Teacup: "Yes, I agree that free speech should not be abraded. There is room for courtesy, however. Why should any WANT to offend another for any reason. What was the purpose of those stupid and humourless Danish cartoons? They had a right to be published, but it was a an act of meanness to do so."
No, it wasn't mean. Mean implies an intent to hurt. I don't think the Danish cartoonists did. I do think the cartoons were unfunny and in bad taste, but hey, so is a lot of "humour" (Bernard Manning?)
No-one has the right NOT to be offended.
I do agree that courtesy and respect for others is good, however, there is a slippery slope where that becomes self-censorship because we dare not say certain things. That is not a society I want to live in.
Even racist, sexist idiots have the right to air their opinions. If I don't want to read it, I can put the paper down, if I don't want to watch, there's the remote control.
"At the risk of being called anti-Jewish, does this freedom of expression extends to glorifying Hitler and wearing Nazi-symbol t-shirts? Or are some sensibilities more important than others?"
Hmmm...I dispute the point. Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. Can you imagine the outcry if he dressed as "an Islamist extremist terrorist"?!
As I said above, I defend anyone's right to say anything they like (as long as it stops short of inciting hatred etc.), so I for one would be inconsistent if I said glorifying Hitler and wearing swastikas was unacceptable. (By the way, the swastika was bastardised from a south Asian religious symbol, still often found in Buddhist temples). So by all means, people can go ahead and do that. They're only advertising the fact that they are ignorant idiots. As, of course, are Islam-bashers.
I do think some Muslims are oversensitive, however.
I didn't see any Jews protesting against David Irving and Nick Griffin being allowed to speak, or against, indeeed, the "hilarious" wearing of fancy dress Nazi uniforms. If they did, I would, while deploring the actions above, still insist that there cannot be self- or state censorship.
I defend anyone's right to insult Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, black people, women, gay people, lesser spotted blue whales in wheelchairs...but I entirely agree, I don't understand why anyone would want to set out to deliberately offend someone. That's different from UNintentionally offending, although thoughtlessness is not a good quality either.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CommentRestricted
November 29, 2007 11:14 AM
"We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence)."
Excuse me, but there is zero evidence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure. He appears only in the scripture of his cult, scripture that blazenly plagarised the older cults (such as the virgin birth, someting the Zoroastrianists claimed a thousand years earlier).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 11:16 AM
Brusselsexpats : "I promise not to call my teddy "Gordon"."
Don't fret, Muslims only worship one Prophet. You can say what you like about all the others; Thomas, James, The Fat Controller etc.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
davidhadley
November 29, 2007 11:19 AM
englishhermit: "I was brought up on 'sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.'et it is apparent in these more multi culturally sensitive times that name calling does hurt and can cause ill effects to people."
Well, no, not at all. The whole point of the old saying is that 'names will never harm me', because I WILL NOT allow them to.
What all these over-sensitive 'victims' in the race to be the most sensitive and the easiest to be 'offended' never seem to realise that you do have to 'take offence'. That is, 'the offensiveness' is not inherent in the alleged insult, but it is your own reaction to it. This becomes obvious when - for example it is deemed acceptable for one gay to call another 'queer', but not for a heterosexual to do the same, and many other such examples for each 'victim' group. The word has not changed, the act of uttering it is no different, all that has changed is the context. Therefore you have to choose which is the 'offensive' version.
That is what the old saying actually means: I will not let words harm me, because I have power over what they mean to me, the words do not have any power over me.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DrJohnZoidberg
November 29, 2007 11:22 AM
Religious groups, be they Muslims or Alphabods, have risen in prominence over the last few years and it now seems impossible to do anything without offending someone's chosen skypixie and them asserting that they have every right to affect your life with their childish beliefs. Want to buy fags? Woman behind the counter won't sell them to you on the grounds that it runs counter to her religion...maybe she, and the employer, should have thought about that prior to her starting the job. I look forward to the Jehovah's Witness brain surgeon saying he can't operate on a patient...
We need to look at the French and Turkish models of keeping religion out of the public domain rather than bolstering the position of these archaic ideologies in society. The libs go on about all the positive aspects of religion and how they invigorate community and 'celebrating diversity and all that cack, but pointedly ignore that they all, pretty much, have a 'slaughter the unbeliever' clause, which was enough to get Mein Kampf a very bad rep. Why are religious books exempt from such criticism? Oh, they're not
....it's just some nutter may 'hear the words of God' and carve you up if you're too vociferous about their chosen fairytale.
By all means practice in the comfort of your own home, in your own place of worship and, most importantly, in your own time. I like watching TV but I have to do that in my own time, and so it should be with religion. It's a choice, not a right. If you need time off work to worship, tough. If you expect that dress codes will be revised to accommodate you, tough. If your chosen skypixie tells you not to eat certain stuff, then take sandwiches, don't expect the works canteen to alter its menus for you. Don't expect the rest of the taxpayers to fork out for you to indoctrinate your kid in the religious brainwashing centre of your choice, fund it yourself and ensure that it takes place outside of normal school hours.
For too long the non-religious (as a catch all) have been expected to stfu and fund and kowtow to and tippy-toe around
different religions for fear of offending them (most religions now employ someone to be 'rofessionally offended' on their behalf or to spin things which make tiehr beliefs look bad....Hi Inayat!). Perhaps it is time that we had our rights as non-believers enshrined and have the right to say what we think about any religion without facing opprobrium or risking legal sanction.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
vitriol
November 29, 2007 11:23 AM
How many stupid pills do you take before subscribing to Hitchen's "Law"? If no evidence is offered from either side, that is simply a polarity of positions, not an argument that concludes either side. Christopher Hitchens is a boring, jaded and failed opportunist with views that wouldn't be out of place in the fourth form boys' lavatory.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
aintin
November 29, 2007 11:26 AM
There's no free society, freedom is a process - not a fixed object/product.
As part of the social process of discovering how free living might be, we might agree that prejudices pasted upon other people - tend to inhibit everyone's freedoms.
For example, say if I defined myself as a hindu and mix mainly with hindu people - I would inhibit both myself and society around me.
As a society, we can live with such prejudices as long as they are of a personal nature and do not ask others to be more than indifferent.
When groups, be it religious or otherwise, demand the rest of society to respect their prejudices by means of deference - they do not respect the process of living freely together, by the very demand.
Such demands for accepting a religious/cultural/personal/social prejudice is hypocritical and as such basically immoral. The hypocrisy stems from the fact that each grouping, be it religious, cultural or social, and each person, at some point in history, had to ask from the rest of society to at least suspend a prejudice against them..
From German immigrants in the 19th century who had to fight not to be seen as lazy, through to West Indies immigrants who had to fight skin colour prejudices, and people who might find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong accent.. Everyone had to fight prejudice, or rely on the fact some else did it..
When liberals ask people to accommodate personal and group prejudices by way of self-censorship and moralisation bullying - they clip their own wings.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
KingofFun
November 29, 2007 11:28 AM
Just as atheism is a reaction to an agenda set by theism, so this piece seems to be essentially reactive. For example "we, the citizens need to agree..." - why? Who is forcing this question of definitions upon us? Freedom evaporates once it becomes essential to be so defined. Something intangible which we might once have called freedom is lost. Have we reached that point? Only if we buy into the agenda that defines other beliefs as inimical.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
finniestoncrane
November 29, 2007 11:30 AM
@ theendarm
I don't think anyone should be obliged to respect beliefs or arguments they think utterly fatuous. So, when you write (shout, rage boy), in capital letters, "your (sic) can't prove our God doesn't exist" I must be free to point out that I can't disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns or monsters under the bed.
http://thepamphleteeruk.blogspot.com/
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Gulfstream5
November 29, 2007 11:32 AM
Religion is simply an archaic method of controlling and dictating to others based on some supposed but fictitious divine right to do so. It is obviously completely incompatible with any modern liberal democracy.
Secularism is not an argument or a debate about anything. It simply means that the laws in a society are not influenced by religious dogma.
Atheism means no belief without proof, the primary tenet of both science and law.
Given its false basis, lack of accountability and complete inability to evolve, it is hardly surprising that religion is now irrelevant in any modern democracy.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Benulek
November 29, 2007 11:37 AM
GivePieceAChance- some good points, but you're a little unfair here:
TGA: "Freedom of expression necessarily includes the right to offend; not the duty, but the right."
Not necessarily. How about freedom of expression combined with a reasonable degree of respect for others?
I'm sure that all that is really meant by the 'right to offend' is an illustration of how 'freedom of expression' may appear in the context in question: namely, that the ability of religious groups to co-exist together is conditioned, inter alia, by the ability of groups to take and give offence. I'm sure that it wasn't the schoolteacher's intention to give offence, but she did, and in a free society that 'right' would be glossed as the right not to fear arrest for the fact. I am quite happy to respect others' religious feelings (up to a point) but I would rather that respect originated from my own learning process and not from state or theocratic edict. I don't think TGA is advocating thoughtless, impolite and disrespectful abuse of religionists, but rather something gentler and more conducive to mutual discourse- namely, the right to mock and tease. Nobody, in the end, can legislate for respect, as I'm sure you'd agree- and by inadvertently giving offence, we learn where the boundaries of 'reasonable respect' are: both for the faith groups we are referring to, and for ourselves.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MrDismal
November 29, 2007 11:39 AM
We seem to be concentrating on freedom of speech instead of freedom of action. Speaking is just one subset of action. I hold that people should be free to DO whatever they want so long as they don't damage others in the process and under various circumstances to do things which do damage other people so long as they thus prevent damage to themselves or others with the definition of damage and whether or not the damage was justified decided (where there's dispute) by a properly constituted court.
Now, in the same way that we can immediately decide that it's wrong for a mugger to demand money from people with menaces we can decide the same thing with respect to the tax collectors of an over-bearing government. So taxation is a tricky number and what happens to taxation once collected is even trickier. I maintain that since 1066 taxation has been used by the rich and powerful to exploit the poor and the weak.
Cigarette tax, at the moment, falls much more heavily on poor people than it does on rich people (it hardly affects rich people who smoke because it's easy, if you're rich, to avoid the tobacco tax). I say this is an illiberal tax because taxation is illiberal in itself - although once people start going on about the NHS (and I think of all those extreme sportsmen who injure themselves and still get treatment) I point out that cigarette tax pays for far more than the special NHS needs of smokers. And then I point out that I'm not free to run a pub for consenting adults that allows people to sit in front of a fire, indoors, smoking a cigarette and drinking a pint of beer.
Liberal - Libertarian - Freedom - it's about more than talk.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Freego
November 29, 2007 11:39 AM
At the risk of appearing to be trite, let me assert that God indubitably is: it is what he is that is in doubt.
Anyone who says he knows what He is is a lunatic.
This means that all monotheists are very, very dangerous lunatics.
For proof look at the history of these people, from the biblical times to date to show that it is (again) indubitably correct.
Simply put, a man who worships God can only be worshipping the God of his own mind. If he claims this is the only God, even if he enters into an alliance of convenience with his mates to beat the heathen, he can only be claiming to be that God.
So he is mad. Indubitably again!
Most monotheists are loony, even those who claim to be atheist or agnostic, for the latter in the West are of that inclination to the very monotheist God they disparage or ignore.
The word most is used here to because this argument is only applicable in honour of the Judeao/Christian West.
Actually, despite the plethora of local Gods religion is fundamentally monotheist in the East. The difference is that very very few in the East claim to know God. They simply and knowingly worship in the way they understand, and so wherever they are they worship whichever vision of God pertains. Their own God is in turn regarded and welcomed as a visitor wherever they go. Offer and acceptance is never more profoundly expressed. Visit Taoist/Buddhist temples, open eyes and ears and you will see and hear.
History shows this is more easily said in English than done by Englishmen.
If you do perchance see and hear you will probably agree that the West is by and large relatively completely nutty.
It is distinctly possible that the looming swing towards the East is consequent on precisely this.
May it come quickly. As almost all those who suffered colonisation will tell you, the saints have been commonly identified as the pirates they have have always been.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
HenryFitz
November 29, 2007 11:45 AM
theendarm,
British law guarantees freedom of expression and freedom from harassment. As no-one forced you to read The Satanic Verses, you were not being harassed. If you disagree with the wisdom of freedom of expression, try to think of some hypothetical subjects on which dissent might be criminalised, and then see if you think that would be a good thing. Hint: Iraq.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
GavP
November 29, 2007 11:47 AM
Urgh, the fetish of freedom. The view that the good life is being free to do whatever we want to do. It's the politics of the 15 year old.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
attempt
November 29, 2007 11:56 AM
TGA writes: "When a Muslim letter-writer in yesterday's Guardian tells us, with the aid of Qur'anic references, that Islam, properly understood, supports 'the vital principle of freedom of speech,' what possible interest have we non-Muslim liberals in arguing against him?"
Good point. But some miscellaneous thoughts about that and the column in general. I think they're incoherent and range from liberal egalitarian to Burkean without pausing for breath, so at best I can say they're ideas that I'm struggling with, not that I fully endorse.
--Liberals ought at least to be suspicious of the Koran's being treated as the trump card in the debate.
--Is your column too much influenced by theory and too little a work of empirical sociology? Liberal egalitarianism and liberal multiculturalism assume that religious groups must grant all their members the freedom to leave the religion. Is it the case on the ground that British Muslims are raising their children with that freedom? Are imams open to that freedom? Do you know? What forms of internal oppression do Islamic communities foster and encourage?
--Are we in our lack of attention to Islamic group solidarity and openness to massive Islamic immigration assuring that our future in the UK will consist more and more as every year goes by of committed Muslims spreading out across the land and declining to buy into liberal ideas about freedom to reject religion? Is that a good thing?
--To what extent are Islamic communities in Britain friends of liberal values broadly?
--If they are not friends of liberalism in fact, is it your view that it would be illiberal to try to discourage Islam? Does that mean that liberals have painted themselves into a corner: in effect saying that the only way they can live up to their liberal beliefs is to permit the steady erosion of liberal beliefs across the country?
--Leaving aside liberalism, what about the plain old matter of human feelings, respect for the indigenous, and the idea that the culture of the majority ought to be given considerable respect in its homeland?
--What about thinking of religion in broader terms, not as metaphysics, but as a system of rituals and symbols that give human life meaning. If we think of religion that way, most of us are religious. For many, England and its culture are their religion in that sense. The spread of Islam--and it is spreading very fast here--erodes England's traditional sense of national community and culture. (I think this is an empirical fact; people are kidding themselves if they don't agree that there is a massive divide in the country between Muslims and non-Muslims and that antagonisms verge on a cold civil war). Why should non-Muslims give Islam exaggerated respect becaeuse it is a metaphysical system of meaning and ritual while Muslims and our law don't really seem very concerned with respecting non-metaphysical systems of meaning and ritual (as if culture is something one can just dispense with, unlike a "real" system of meaning and ritual written down in an ancient book in the Middle East in a foreign language, like religion)?
--Should we attempt to end the cold civil war by stopping the growth of Islam in the UK by radically cutting back immigration from Islamic societies, giving the majority assurance that the systems of meaning and ritual that they value are not in existential crisis, AND work much harder to integrate those Muslims who are here into our systems of power, so that they have a stake in being British and so that it would make no more difference to the British people whether we have an Islamic PM or an Anglican one (or an Islamic bride to Prince William), because it is taken for granted (as it is with, say, David Miliband and Judaism) that Islam is private and secondary and is not going to get in the way of solidarizing with the country as a whole and is not the enemy of being British.
As I said, I'm not sure if these are helpful thoughts or not...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bernardtrois
November 29, 2007 12:01 PM
During a visit to Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, a year before the Bill of Rights was ratified, President George Washington received a letter from Moses Sexias, warden of the Touro Synagogue, seeking assurance of religious freedom for Jews. Here was his response, which was poignant then as it is now and also shows how America's view of religion and its place in the world maintains a consistency that harks back to its very founding.
"While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I
experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness
that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of
the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government,
to become a great and happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind
examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and
immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable
opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who
dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in
safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies
scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due
time and way everlastingly happy.
G. Washington"
It is particularly noteworthy to note Washington's view of America's tolerance of Jews and all other religions on this the 60th annioversary of the founding of Israel which came about largely as the result of the intolerance of Jews in Europe, including Britain, which persists to this day.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
natasha250
November 29, 2007 12:01 PM
I did not realise that Islam was the only religion in the world!!
I am not a muslim, however, as i have an iranian father i know alittle about islam and i have to say that the myth propagated by the right wing media is that muslims are all religious nutters who lock up their daughters and go round whipping non muslims!
Yes, there are problems with the religion, as with all religions, but at the heart of it is an uncompromising demand that all muslims respect other religions which, i think, is a liberal viewpoint, and all of my muslim friends and father's family, some of who are practising muslims, adhere to this.
So why, yet again, do we have an article that propagates this myth, that gives the western idea of liberalism and shows that we are still far away from any form of liberalism with articles like this.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
kico
November 29, 2007 12:09 PM
Timothy, I approve of your version of secularism, and particularly the view that it should not be associated with ani-religiosity. I wish every secularist would read your penultimate paragraph.
Unfortunately, secularism means somewhat more to many people. To give a couple of examples:
1) The banning of religious symbols in public places. This is highly illiberal, bound to foster resentment, and to no good purpose.
2) The banning of religious education in schools. What's been the result of this in the USA? Creationism in science lessons. RE in the UK does little harm, and indeed is a forum for pupils to challenge orthodoxies and learn to think for themselves.
The UK (give or take a few bishops in the House of Lords, and a monarch with no power either over government or the CofE) is already as secularist as any country should ever wish to be. Perhaps more.
We should be wary of fundamentalists on all sides.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Waltz
November 29, 2007 12:14 PM
@ natasha - "So why, yet again, do we have an article that propagates this myth, that gives the western idea of liberalism"
Because the author is a Westerner, writing for a Western newspaper, and advocating a course of action for a Western country?
Were you expecting TGA to advocate an Iranian form of liberalism or something for Britain?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Simplicius
November 29, 2007 12:19 PM
Mr Ash
"Unless, of course, an atheist agenda - to show that religion is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense - trumps the secular liberal agenda, which is to find the ways in which people with different beliefs can live together peacefully in freedom."
From the quoted sentence I take that, although personally you do not believe that god exists, you pit the atheist agenda as illiberal against the secular liberal agenda. Is that right?
Anyway, I agree with your article. There is no need for another thirty-years war.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WheatFromChaff
November 29, 2007 12:22 PM
"A charter of citizens' rights and duties, as proposed by Gordon Brown, would be one way to take this forward."
it was actually proposed by David Cameron and (originally) rubbished by Gordon Brown. It was only a year or so later - no doubt when he thought that everybody had forgotten about it - that GB took it up and pretended that it was his own idea.
"Among the essentials is freedom of expression, which has been eroded to an alarming degree, both by death threats from extremists and by misconceived pre-emptive appeasement on the part of the state and private bodies."
Indeed.
Whilst I know that the teacher and the teddy bear has been done to death in another thread, I have to say that I see little difference in principle between the ridiculous actions of the Sudanese wrt the teddy bear, and the equally ridiculous actions of the Welsh police when Tony Blair was accused of saying "bloody Welsh" to his television set.
Both appear to me to be the result of improper use of the law in order to nag.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ubrben
November 29, 2007 12:22 PM
@ kico - good post.
On the subject of RE, I think what we actually need is a subject more akin to philosophy where world views and outlooked are discussed. Atheism isn't a religion, but needs to be discussed in context with religion. Concepts of liberalism, free speech and multiculturalism could also be included.
We already have "citizenship" lessons as well as RE, it would make more sense IMHO to combine the two.
BTW on religious dress. I agree that banning it is illiberal up to a point, but I agree that the religious rights of the individual shouldn't trump certain issues like health and safety (machine operation for example) or teaching. In these cases religious dress precludes you from doing that particular job and that just needs to be accepted rather than expecting the job to change to suit you. There needs to be give and take on both sides.
Ben
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Lloydy2
November 29, 2007 12:40 PM
Firstly, I've read some very encouraging signs on this thread that there is column sense still left in the world. Especially so the remarks by Dr John Zoidberg and lookbeforeyouleap.
I'm an agnostic who would on balance, prefer to have some level of faith. But that's my private values and I expect no support for that. If I wanted to go to church, which I don't, I'd do it in my own time. And I'd be just as offended by my children being taught that God is a fact by Fundamental Christians as I would they being taught that aethism is the truth. The only fact is that nobody can know - so lets bloody well leave it that way.
But we do have to recognise that in this country, Christianity exerts very few demands on our lives compared to say, a century ago, wheras Islam - twinned by a multiculturalist, apologistic agenda among policy makers in the host nation, has encouraged many to push the boundaries and expect everyone to fit in. That's the difference between a moderate faith on the wane in a relatively cyncical, progressive society, and an absolute faith practiced by all that is brainwashed from birth.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Sluijser
November 29, 2007 12:44 PM
Excellent piece TGA, looking forward to your next instalment. I think your distinction between secularism and atheism works well.
watermelon, November 29, 2007 3:29 AM,
*** Problem is, while atheists don't really care much what people believe in the privacy of their homes (same as our attitude to sex), the reverse is not true. Being an atheist excludes you from being part of society (and almost certainly will result in your death in most) in almost all Middle Eastern countries and the US. ***
Not true. Being a believer excluded you from being part of society when the Goddes of Reason was enthroned in France, at the end of the 19th/beginning of 20th century in France, on the government side of the civil war in Spain, and in every communist country from East Germany to North Korea.
*** One of the most frightening aspects of the rise of the Religious right in America is the absolute inability of an atheist to attain political office there now, and I suspect this position may come in other liberal democracies sooner rather than later. It is really the Algerian problem writ large - do you allow to come to power, in a democratic process, a group who will destroy democracy? What becomes of the secular/liberal/atheist democracy which includes a majority of groups who are interested in imposing their own religious beliefs and practices in a totalitarian society? ***
A false comparison. There is no *institutional* barrier at all to an atheist becoming president. It is exclusively the voter's preference. If voter's preferences would change tomorrow, neither the Constitution nor any rulebook or organisation derived from it can or will want to stop an atheist gaining power.
The Iranian, Egyptian, Turkish, Iranian etc problem is entirely different: islamist parties propose changes to the relevant state constitutions that would bar non-muslims gaining power, or instituting laws that conflict with islam, without future voter preferences being able to do anything about it.
You also ignore that with the exception of France, the standard separation of church and state in Western Europe came about fairly organically, when the vast majority of people still was Christian, and Christianity was emphatically not written into the Constitution of the United States, though the vast majority of citizens there was always Christian.
Your manichean division of atheist benign, theist dangerous is just not born out by history. There are major differences between subentities within each group, and the one group ain't more dangerous than the other. If you are afraid of what might happen in the States, I'm equally afraid of what would happen if masters Grayling and Dawkins and Ms Toynbee had their way - it would get very cold for any type of believer.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
disveteran
November 29, 2007 12:48 PM
We all have a very simple game plan; we are to love one another. Does anyone have a better suggestion?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Abahachi
November 29, 2007 12:56 PM
"History's hardly an objective discipline is it. It's generally about wars and is generally written by the winners.
It's not open to testing hypotheses. I reckon that Stonehenge was viewed by most people at the time like most of us viewed the Millenium Dome, can't prove it of course."
Where do we start? Possibly I shouldn't start at all, since this is presumably a deliberate attempt at prodding the historically-inclined to get a reaction, but anyway...
History cannot be purely objective; neither is any other form of human knowledge. It is not necessarily much more subjective than other forms of human knowledge. True, it is not possible to verify hypotheses through experiment - we can't re-run the past - but it does proceed through the elaboration and attempted verification of hypotheses. True, there are things that we cannot know with much or any certainty, e.g. exactly how its builders viewed Stonehenge, but there are plenty of things that we can know through historical and archaeological research. It is not generally about wars - as a generalisation that doesn't even apply to pre-modern historians - and while it has traditionally been produced by the dominant, victorious culture, that does not mean that it's therefore uncritical (the most extensive criticisms of Roman society come from the Romans themselves) and it's certainly not the case now - if anything, history is more likely to side with the underdog and say nasty unpatriotic things about imperialism and racism.
As for the idea that you can explain away the non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus simply by citing a Wikipedia entry devoted to setting out the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus... Speaking as an atheist I am entirely in agreement with the view that historical evidence cannot possibly demonstrate that Jesus was the son of God or performed miracles, but claiming that he didn't exist at all is both absurd and unnecessary.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
recklessfox
November 29, 2007 12:57 PM
An excellent article - I find it hard to disagree with TGA, not so some of the posters, but I've just picked out one whcih I feel encapsulates the total gulf of incomprehension between (some religious people) and what I think of as freedom of expression
theendarm
as for freedom of expression - I have read salmon rushdie the satanic verses - it is a deeply insulting book to muslims and I am afraid your limits to freedom of expression should accomodate this.
Freedom of expression must include freedom to insult or it is worthless. No idea, religion, or theory can be beyond criticism. It might be polite to be respectful but it is not and cannot be required - at a personal level I have no respect for many religious views and think they are dangerous delusions, notwithstanding that I know and am friends with many people who are themselves religious. I do not insult them, but I might well insult (in their terms) their religion if asked about it since I would tell them I thought it was all total nonsense. Those who are gratuitously offensive may find it hard to find people who wish to debate with them, but that is their own problem.
Thenedarm just doesn't understand what freedom of expression means.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DanielBarker
November 29, 2007 1:07 PM
I think skypixie is a fantastic term. I'm going to start using it if DrJohnZoidberg has no objection.
I think sometimes it is necessary to offend. Galileo, Martin Luther King, Darwin, Emily Pankhurst... all of these people offended a lot of people a great deal. And I'm very glad they did.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ubrben
November 29, 2007 1:09 PM
@ Abahachi I was being facetious hence the tongue out emoticon.
As an atheist/agnostic I've always been drawn to the idea that Jesus is a purely fictional figure with no historical basis for him as a single individual.
Indeed it seems more plausible that he's a construct or amalgamation of various individuals at best.
To ensure I'm being historically rigorous can you point me in the direction of the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus?
Ben
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MrPikeBishop
November 29, 2007 1:09 PM
"We all have a very simple game plan; we are to love one another. Does anyone have a better suggestion?"
Ignore one another? Talk to people we like, ignore the rest?
Retire to our barbed wire compounds in the peak district and grease our ammunition?
I'm easy any way.
BTW, causing offence intentionally may well be worth it - I'm thinking of the logic behind the women's reclaim the night marches on other threads - there' no particular reason for the marches, other than to have the marches, and make a point about presense, numbers, commitment to a particular ideal. Publishing the Motoons can be looked at in exactly the same way - likewise insulting any religion. I see Inayat cosying up to liberals - they think - with his carefully worded denuniciations of Sudan, but always with the caveat that the schoolteacher didn't *intentionally* insult islam - so what? Intention doesn't matter here, any more than intention matters when you choose what colour pants to wear - you can do as you like. here at least.
I belive in when in Rome, in Sudan, this lady was daft to do as she did, and we have no right to demand any special treatment for her - we can *ask* for it, we can't *demand* it, with any moral right on our side. It's a soverign nation, they make their own rules. For the same reason, Iran is not our problem, neither is Zimbabwe, neither was Iraq or Kosovo or Rwanda. Countries, just like individuals, are free to make their own mistakes, and the only way we *could* intervene in that is to do so by force of arms, which is entirely wrong.
Of course I *think* that the Sudanese are wrong, in fact I'm certain of it - no moral relativism here - but it's bugger all to do with us. She shouldn't have gone there without swotting up on the situation there.
here in the UK of course our rules should apply - which is why we should have published the Motoons (btw, can we see an end to this idea that not to do so was purely the idea of the private sector? Have we forgotten Jack Straw's requests of the media at the time?) and why the BBC, for instance, should not refer to "the Prophet Mohammed" but rather to "Mohammed" or "the claimed prophet Mohammed" or even "the 'prophet' Mohammed" - he wasn't a prophet, no one was. I assume he was just another smart guy on the make, greasing his way of the food chain by flimflamming the gullible and needy. Good luck to the feller, but WHY then do supposedly rational, not to say secular, organisations play along with the ruse, hundreds of years after he died?
Mohammed, Jesus, Bhudda, David Koresh - probably interesting company, handy to have around in a fight, some of them, big drinkers I bet, but "prophets"? Nope.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Desiderius
November 29, 2007 1:15 PM
I would be interested to learn from Timothy Garton Ash whether his model of liberalism has scope to accommodate itself further to religions. If so, what would this entail, and should it be done? If there is no such scope, where does that leave us?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
AntID
November 29, 2007 1:18 PM
"theendarm
as for freedom of expression - I have read salmon rushdie the satanic verses - it is a deeply insulting book to muslims and I am afraid your limits to freedom of expression should accomodate this."
Well many people think the Quran, Bible and other religious texts are insulting to non believers. In a world where it is reasonable to ban Salman Rushdie from writing a book, it would also be reasonable to ban your 'texts'.
Does that illustrate the problem with censoring things because some people don't like them?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Aristides
November 29, 2007 1:28 PM
Greetings from Greece
Last week professor Grayling took it for granted that he has a right "to attack other people's ideas" while you wrote today about "the right to offend" -as opposed to constructively pointing out your view, always with respect to the human worth of the recipient of your comments. This reveals someone who wishes to conquer, to impose his views, which falls short from the stated liberal ideal of tolerance. You have both to learn to show more respect and tolerance to your fellow human beings, according to your own very precious liberal standards. You have to render the gift of Reason an agent of the humanism you claim to profess rather than let this gift be hijacked by the authoritarian "hidden in all of us", as George F. Kennan, as great a gentleman as the world has known, wrote. Kennan also wrote, "we should refuse to be beastly to others even by way of reaction" so the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, being a case of profound disrespect for the human worth of our Muslim brothers -isn't all kind of ridiculing authoritarian disrespect that should be outlawed in a civilised society?- are as unacceptable as is the conquest of non Muslims through jihad -all the same jihad being the birthright of Muslims when it comes to defending their faith from physical attack.
Concerning the holy cow -I have no problem with this brand of religion as with any other brand- of the differentiation of the state from religion, a poem -I hope in correct English- from the forthcoming issue of the literary journal "Greek Letters", which I dedicate to all of you:
Love
The University's application form
asked me to state my religion.
Well, my religion is a taboo world.
Though it is fond of the bird in every cage
it knows no home in particular,
neither religion
as long as religion slaughters and suppresses in its name,
nor secularism,
as long as Love,
the only thing we all need,
remains a taboo word in our serious newspaper frontpages
and University amphitheatres.
The issue is
the necessity for the differentiation between religion
and the secular state
or, rather, the suicidal deviation of all things
from their very possible convergence in Love?
Aristides Mitsakis, aristidesmitsakis@hotmail.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
sarka
November 29, 2007 1:29 PM
A good article as far as it goes, but how far does it go?
Obviously we can and do discuss principles philosophically, abstractly, but in fact our principles have developed out of social practice in a way that means our abstract principles tend to be rather inconsistent. So the right of free speech does indeed imply the right to offend, but how far and in what ways and whom is something that has changed over time. E.g. we were certainly more "liberal" about offending Jews before the war, and we are certainly more "liberal" now when it comes to insulting the church, using obscene language in public for purposes of entertainment or satire etc...even though throughout the century Britain has generally identified itself with the liberal value of "free speech".
Moreover, everywhere in the west it has only been gradually that many liberals, believing in civic equality, have come to see categories like women, or blacks, as fully included in that equality.
Less than a century ago, for example, the Defence of the Realm Act meant extraordinary moral surveillance and sneaking in England - no kissing in parks, for example, constant raids on night clubs - much of it of a kind that would not have disgraced an Ayatollah (though the penalties were less severe, admittedly)
So we've got our principles, some quite venerable, but we also have our as it were body of "common law" interpretations of those principles...depending on cultural change, practical considerations, etc. Also, and here's the rub, depending on a basic framework of cultural and social concensus - not one that precludes conflict, obviously not - our norms have evolved through conflict and diversity, but there still has to be a degree of consensus. Hence the doubts cast on multiculturalism - i.e. that some immigrant groups are just too alien, or too bombastically rejectionist in principles and practice to fit in, even into our baggy and quarrelsome consensus... And hence the question "Is Islam compatible with democracy", which should be understood not on purely abstract grounds but more properly as "are the working beliefs and practices of muslims (refine and qualify which muslims, when where etc as necessary)compatible with the working beliefs and practices of non-muslims (refine and qualify as necessary)"?
And then the even more relevant question, not really posed by TGA, of "to the extent that there is an incompatibility, then what?" And what sort of guidelines does liberalism offer us here? How does liberalism enforce and protect itself without becoming illiberal? Please give us the answer in your book TGA!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
SuperOmega
November 29, 2007 1:29 PM
"Atheism is an argument about scientific truth, individual liberation and the nature of the good life"
Atheism is not 'an argument', and certainly not one about 'scientific truth' or 'liberation', whatever the hell either of those two utterly nonsensical concepts entail. I am so bored of liberalism. Stop confusing it with atheism. Atheism is not just Christianity with God taken out and replaced with 'science'.
Seriously, what IS freedom? What does it mean? What does it consist of, other than some mystical crypto-religious attempt to defy all popularly understood tenets of biology and physics?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 1:36 PM
Abahachi : "As for the idea that you can explain away the non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus"
Explain it away? There is nothing to explain.
Are you confusing evidence for the existence of Christians with evidence for the existence of Jesus by any chance. They are two very seperate things.
Abahachi : "Speaking as an atheist I am entirely in agreement with the view that historical evidence cannot possibly demonstrate that Jesus was the son of God or performed miracles, but claiming that he didn't exist at all is both absurd and unnecessary."
Since the only 'evidence' are the rumours and hearsay of the Bible, Josephus and the rest it is hard to see the justification for any other conclusion. There is not a single primary source. Nobody has ever claimed to have actually met him just to know someone who has met someone who knows someone who has.
If you think there is historical evidence then lets see it, not evidence for Christians but actual evidence for Jesus. I've made this challenge many times before and nobody has ever come up with any evidence.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Abahachi
November 29, 2007 1:48 PM
@ubrben; sorry, I'm not so good at emoticons - I thought you were sticking out your tongue at the entire historical profession... I'd generaly recommend the works of Geza Vermes, who is a historian rather than a theologian and Jewish rather than Christian, so doesn't have any obvious bias towards wishful interpretation of the evidence and does cover the whole range of material rather than just the Christian texts.
There seems to be a lot of truth in the idea that the way in which Jesus gets portrayed, above all by his followers, is heavily influenced by the example of various earlier historical and/or mythological figures. It's possible, though harder to demonstrate, that he may himself have deliberately taken them as role models. Certainly an awful lot of the details of his life, even the non-supernatural aspects, are impossible to verify at best and downright dubious the rest of the time. However, the existence of a Jew called Jesus who was a religious leader of some sort and was put to death is mentioned in several Jewish and Roman sources that pre-date the Gospels, so you really have to be a Da Vinci Code-level conspiracy theorist to believe that he cannot possibly have existed.
My atheist take on this is that I'm happy to recognise the merits of some aspects of Christian teaching, as one of the sources of modern humanism, and so would prefer to claim them as a human invention rather than either a divine revelation or as the ideological trappings of a religious conspiracy. At any rate, atheists don't help their case by ignoring the conventions of historical evidence and argument in exactly the same way as the 'he was God the Bible says so' brigade.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
cathpal
November 29, 2007 1:54 PM
A really interesting piece.
"Yes, of course, there is the Qur'an and the Hadith, just as there is the Bible. But, as in all great religions, these are complex texts, subject to diverse interpretations."
I think the treatment of the use of the text in representaional form- being quoted in different spaces is treated as substantially different than the bible.It seems to me it's guarded in much the same way as say the eucharist is in the Catholic faith presently- it holds the same need for protectionism from believers inside and outside the believing community. The difference is the eucharist never leaves the protected space of the church - whereas the Quaranic text does and can be represented in what's considered disrespectful ways to it's sacredness to the believer.This extreme protectionism is inevitably in conflict with a free-thinking society able to challenge and reject ideas.What's problematic to modern liberalism is that words from any text should hold such rights for respect/reverence by not only believers but those in the shared space of the everyday world.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Jackanapes
November 29, 2007 2:12 PM
A good article, and one in which I am in near-total agreement. My only quibble is about your over-simplification of the atheist argument for why religion is dangerous. We have quite a few more reasons for that than the more obviously deranged parts of the "holy" texts, of course. Let's not misrepresent the nature of the atheist - or, more correctly, anti-theist - objections to religion.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ChooChoo
November 29, 2007 2:13 PM
Wooly - tut tut. I thought we might get a deal. Is John the Baptist also made up?
Your criteria for and particular understanding of 'evidence' is not shared by historians for the rough period in question. That's not a knock-down, but it's worth noting. (And it can't just be brushed off). The problem I have with this line - and its a historiographical gripe - is that a whole host of minutiae are interpreted in v selective & convenient ways. One encounters on the internet the curious phenomenon of people speaking about, for example, Josephus' texts as if they are experts in Josephan prosody and manuscript transmissions. (I'm not so au fait, so I'd dare not speak in this way. But I also realise that - just as in all sorts of scientific disciplines - we do require arguments or at least assumptions on authority, as weak, though not wholly inadmissible, as this form of argument is). I think I've suggested before - if you consider dates of Sallust's composition, with the complication of manuscript traditions etc - what about Spartacus? (You often raise Hercules - you tell me which sources you have in mind for this comparison, as well as showing a sense of what is precisely being written in each one). I can't completely make out your grounds for rejecting all the christian sources as wholly useless. Moreover, as I've often asked you - and you've not been forthcoming - this thesis then needs to consider such things as how to explain the by all accounts rapid spread of confessing Christians at that time, the fact that no contemporaries pointed out the flimsiness of a group of people inspired by a non-existent figure, and a whole host of other contingencies.
The fact is, respected scholars in the relevant fields have consistently rejected the Jesus Mythologists' position(s). Being neither wholly ignorant nor expert in these matters, I am more inclined towards a France or Van Voorst than a WML or internet website with curious approach to historical comparisons or even dear old Earl Doherty; I guess I'm not so different from the vast majority of people (among whom I number - don't almost all of us, at least to begin with?) who prefer the Dawkins and Goulds to the Rev BillyBob NoBrains 6dayers of the world when it comes to evolution. Before you make a move to strike me down with talk of evidence, methodology etc etc - yes, I know. But most people's knowledge of science is gained, at least in part, on authority. and this is true of aspects of the knowledge of scientists themselves. (My dear old best friend from college, a Dawkinsite and PhD student in biochemistry agrees. If he says so, then...). And there is nothing unreasonable in this: without it, we'd never learn in the first place.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
XXXL
November 29, 2007 2:16 PM
Kico:
"1) The banning of religious symbols in public places. This is highly illiberal, bound to foster resentment, and to no good purpose."
Any examples of this? Certainly banning religious symbols in *government* places makes sense, or should we allow crucifixes and biblical portraits on the walls of courtrooms?
"2) The banning of religious education in schools. What's been the result of this in the USA? Creationism in science lessons. RE in the UK does little harm, and indeed is a forum for pupils to challenge orthodoxies and learn to think for themselves."
Any examples of this? Secular societies allow education *about* religion, just not proselytising. You can certainly teach comparitive religion and history of religion in the USA, but you cannot teach religion as science.
Cheers
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
littleroy
November 29, 2007 2:26 PM
The heart of the problem is fear.
It is fear that leads the affraid towards more and more intolerance.
Once the people become intolerant, they get wiped out.
This is historcal fact.
Tolerant societies florish and inolerant regimes are destroyed.
Its survival of the fittest.
Bigots are not fit for purpose.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bilahora
November 29, 2007 2:34 PM
I would suggest that the EU regulate religions and political parties within the EU in the same way. If in the articles of association or scriptures or teachings from any wing or branch of a political party or religion however obscure or ambiguous or dated, they advocate or allow or accept under any circumstances actions contrary to EU or international laws or conventions then they should be required to either remove these articles, teachings, scriptures or face closure in the EU. If they then went on to promote these teachings, articles, opinions the governing bodies of the political parties or religions would face criminal prosecution.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Killigan
November 29, 2007 2:39 PM
Great column. It would be even better if you would reply to a few of the better posts...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 2:40 PM
ChooChoo : "Wooly - tut tut. I thought we might get a deal. Is John the Baptist also made up?"
You tell me, is there any historical evidence for John the Baptist? Surely it is equally as fair to reject the Earl Doherty purely-mythic-Jesus-hypothesis for lack of evidence as it is to reject the historic-Jesus-hypothesis for a similar lack of evidence.
Perhaps you could enquire of the distinguished historians what the historical evidence is that convinces them. It seems to be that the default position is to uniquely, or almost uniquely, assume Jesus's historicity despite an absence of evidence.
I'm not particularly fussed either way as it happens. I've had my mind changed one way and can be easily persuaded to change it back by just one bit of decent evidence.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bilahora
November 29, 2007 2:42 PM
My point being that over the past few months and especially days the Muslim population of the EU has come under quite a barrage of accusations and possibly abuse some valid, some not and the defence has been along the lines of not tarring all with same brush and that scriptures are ambiguous, varied and many. The simple way would be to remove all teachings contrary to EU and International laws and conventions.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 2:48 PM
Abahachi : "However, the existence of a Jew called Jesus who was a religious leader of some sort and was put to death is mentioned in several Jewish and Roman sources that pre-date the Gospels, so you really have to be a Da Vinci Code-level conspiracy theorist to believe that he cannot possibly have existed."
Who is saying that he could not possibly have existed?
Although some reliable sources pre-date the Gospels they post-date the alleged lifetime of Jesus and were not written by direct witnesses. They are simply repeating rumour and myth. They do prove the existence of Christians at that date but are not evidence for Jesus.
There is no need to propose any conspiracy. In fact it is Christianity which is the ultimate conspiracy theory : a claim of an invisible God and a secret route to eternal life that the authorities are trying to hush up.
Abahachi : "At any rate, atheists don't help their case by ignoring the conventions of historical evidence and argument in exactly the same way as the 'he was God the Bible says so' brigade."
You seem close to admitting that there is no evidence beyond myths and hearsay. This is not what most people think of as sound history and if you admitted that level of evidence then you'd have to regard William Tell, Robin Hood and King Arthur as historical figures.
So where is your historical evidence for Jesus? Where are his writings? The testimonies of contemporaries who met him in person? Or indeed anything that can be decently called historical evidence?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Heresiarch
November 29, 2007 2:52 PM
Woolly Minded LIberal: "It seems to be that the default position is to uniquely, or almost uniquely, assume Jesus's historicity despite an absence of evidence."
Come now. If you tell me you have an aunt named Mavis, I have absolutely no evidence that she exists. Yet I'll probably believe you. And if Suetonius says that Caligula had a horse named Incitatus, I'm inclined to believe him, even though it is wildly improbable that he appointed the horse to the Senate.
There are these gospels, which say (though they're pretty hazy as to dates) that there was this guy called Jesus, about 40 years ago, who we would like you to think was the Son of God.
You don't have to believe the Son of God part. But I see no particular reason to think that the gospel writers (or Paul, for that matter) completely made him up. Why should they. Wouldn't "He didn't even exist" have been a pretty convincing knock-down argument to use against early Christians?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
XXXL
November 29, 2007 2:52 PM
GivePeaceAChance
TGA: "Freedom of expression necessarily includes the right to offend; not the duty, but the right."
GPAC: Not necessarily. How about freedom of expression combined with a reasonable degree of respect for others?
Define "reasonable degree of respect". If it offends someone that the women in your family have their heads uncovered would you ask them to cover up in public? Why not?
----------------------
TGA: "We must, in particular, be free to say what we like about historical figures, be they Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Churchill, Hitler or Gandhi (and then let our claims be tested against the evidence)."
GPAC: How can one test the claim that Jesus is or is not divine?
Well look at the evidence....
----------------------
TGA: "In a free society, proselytisation, heresy and apostasy are not crimes. This - and apostasy in particular - is not accepted in many versions of Islam, but it is a liberal essential on which there can be no compromise."
GPAC: The statement "there can be no compromise" is also the position taken by the enemies of liberalism as you define it. You are tipping your hand here.
It is indeed ironic that to defend liberalism we need laws to prevent illiberalism. After all, if the alternative to liberalism is to accept, for example, that apostasy can be punished by death, then I will put up with laws defending liberalism.
----------------------
TGA: "In order to secure these freedoms, we need a secular public sphere."
GPAC: ??? The UK is not a secular state. Do you propose to disestablish the Church of England?
Of course.
----------------------
TGA: "atheism is an argument about scientific truth, individual liberation and the nature of the good life."
GPAC: Actually, atheism is irrational hostility to religion masquerading as scientific truth.
Are you saying that all atheists are irrational and hostile to religion? Every one? Or a few polemicists?
Having said that atheism is not about scientific truth either, it is not having a belief in religion.
Cheers
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WheatFromChaff
November 29, 2007 2:55 PM
WoollyMindedLiberal
"Since the only 'evidence' are the rumours and hearsay of the Bible, Josephus and the rest it is hard to see the justification for any other conclusion."
Hearsay evidence *is* evidence, and would be received as such in any (non criminal) court of law. You may not consider it to be very good evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.
(Much of what is considered to be history comes from hearsay accounts written long after the event. The Trojan war for example.)
"There is not a single primary source. Nobody has ever claimed to have actually met him just to know someone who has met someone who knows someone who has"
The Nag Hammadi scrolls were written by people claiming first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Tody
November 29, 2007 2:59 PM
When relion is involved, the freedom to think for yourself is extinguished. Religion and freedom are therefore mutually exclusive.
Religion is just a dirty form of politics feeding on fear and superstition. Fear of being cast out, suffering eternal damnation and the superstitious belief that old books were writen by God.
The power struggle within the religious communities reaches it's lowest form when innocent behaviour like naming a teddy bear, or claiming the Beatles are more famous than God suffer threats of dire retribution.
Give me good old party politics where we are free to debate, think the unthinkable, call our teddy bears anything we like and even make cartoons of our leaders.
True freedom will never be attainable as long as the religious mandarins hold any sway over our lives.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ubrben
November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
@ Heresiarch If you don't believe the son of god part, what's the point?
This is the nice get out position where we all decide the bibles allegorical and shouldn't be literally followed because, well, that would involve killing a lot of people and doing lots of bad things we as a society have decided are wrong - say slavery for example. So we just talk about Jesus as this nice bloke who lived a long time ago and did some nice stuff. Problem is all the nice stuff is written in a book that talks about him as the son of god. If you don't believe the son of god bit, why should you believe the rest is anything other than literature?
I take it you don't believe in Scientology and would consider their religious books to be "made up" problem is there's no reason to view Christianity as any different.
Ben
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
lookbeforeyouleap
November 29, 2007 3:05 PM
When all is said and done, how about some old-fashioned "D" for dignity and "R" for refinement.
Certainly, the freedom to critique any establishment, ideal, ideology is crucial to any definition of "Freedom of Expression" or to "Democracy". How about reverting to the prescribed language of debate once again. In this style of 'argument', we use phrases such as 'But surely,...', 'I could be wrong, but the way I see it is....' 'I'm sure you will agree that..." and so on.
While bold satire is healthy and things like cartoons, as long as all systems are in peril of having their turn at 'being under fire' and not just one system, must needs be harmless, when it comes to standing up for one's rights, norms, freedoms and, even, for one's 'status quo', it could be a thousand times more effective to do it with dignity and refinement of speech and body language.
Perhaps, we should all practice before a mirror how one may politely advise another to take a running jump, with dignity and refinement but effectively, at all times ensuring that the recipient of this advice can only walk out backwards, in full agreement and without the slightest hint that any offence could have been taken. Just an alternative way.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 3:06 PM
Heresiarch : "There are these gospels, which say (though they're pretty hazy as to dates) that there was this guy called Jesus, about 40 years ago, who we would like you to think was the Son of God."
And there are these stories about these guys King Arthur and William Tell. Nobody calls them evidence.
Heresiarch : "Paul, for that matter) completely made him up."
Paul, who is an established historical figure, never claimed to have met Jesus.
Heresiarch : "Why should they. Wouldn't "He didn't even exist" have been a pretty convincing knock-down argument to use against early Christians?"
For all we know maybe it was a pretty convincing argument at the time but after 50 or 100 years there weren't any people who could say it with assurance. Most Jews at the time didn't have any truck with Christianity and for all I know that is why.
Given that there were thousands of Jews called Yeshua and many of them were crucified by the Romans most people would probably have not challenged what could have seemed a plausible claim.
This doesn't get you off the hook on this - still no sign of any historical evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.
Keep trying.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Lichtenberg
November 29, 2007 3:06 PM
The problem with the 'when in Rome, do like the Romans' ethos, and the problem with the Greek respondent who says Ash is trying to impose his will on others, is that it overlooks what was said earlier about harm. A caveat built into most forms of liberalism these days is tolerate others unless what they are doing involves harming a third person. Thus we tolerate (some forms of) pornography but not paedophilia. If you deny that some practices are plain immoral and that we should actively intervene to stop them (or support convictions against them), you have to explain your stance on paedophiles, or female circumcision, etc. Just saying 'let them do it, it's their culture / way of life / etc.' is a cop out - it's the lamest formulation of liberalism, and only 1st year undergrads espouse it these days (and probably because they have learned a naive version of multiculturalism from their teachers at secondary school).
So liberalism isn't falsified by the 'it's imposing your will on others' objection.
Where liberalism does fail for me, and I say this as a Marxist, is that the concept of harm it tries to outlaw is so literal that it cannot see that the very practices on which a liberal society rests (wage labour - it's what you and I spend 8 hours a day doing) involve a deeper harm - an exploitation of our creativity in service to the profit of our boss, these days a lifelong service if we are to pay off the cost of merely living in our own home.
To stop such harm to ourselves and others, and to make the negative freedom of liberals into a positive reality would require dismantling the very society which liberalism reflects and seeks to legitimise - capitalism.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 3:07 PM
WheatFromChaff : "The Nag Hammadi scrolls were written by people claiming first hand knowledge of Jesus."
What is the weather like on your planet?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
fearfulatheist
November 29, 2007 3:09 PM
@theendarm
The obvious reason that TGA and I can't prove that god doesn't exist is simply because he doesn't. Therefore there is no evidence for his existence or non-existence (how can there be?), and therefore no rational person will believe that he exists. Just as there is no evidence that Muhammad did, or did not, go to the moon. You can't prove he didn't, but you don't therefore believe he did.
If that concept is beyond you, your request for respect for your beliefs is both arrogant and mischievous. All you want is tolerance to believe nonsense. You won't get it here.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ubrben
November 29, 2007 3:10 PM
@ WheatFromChaff
Yes of course hearsay is evidence, and yes it's not brilliant evidence. This is why I choose not to live my life by the hearsay of 2000 years ago. We learnt a lot since then...
Ben
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
wacobloke
November 29, 2007 3:27 PM
TO: Mr. Ash
WOW!! What an excellent column! Not simply a thoughtful and thought-provoking article, but one of a type that has been so profoundly needed in the past few years--one that represents perhaps a good step towards re-establishing a baseline of reality and discourse against the propaganda and hate-mongering and trivialization so cynically practiced for the last 20-odd years by various Christian religious fundamentalists and evangelicals, radio and TV hate-monger entertainers, self-serving and personally non-responsible media moguls, personally non-responsible political strategists and shills, closet and cowardly racists, and war-mongering (and, again, generally personally irresponsible)"neocons" and others of similar leanings.
And, most of all, thanks for reminding us that we are all human, and (pardon my simple paraphrase) that nothing is worth much unless and until we live and start discussions from a point of recognition of the intrinsic worth of others.
Tangentially, for those of us who profess to believe in certain things and in a certain way, then, one of those things has to be, every day, every way, that we are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God. If we don't believe that, all else is bupkes.
To: Bernardtrois
Thanks for re-printing Washington's letter. Funny how the appearance or reminder of factual truth or evidence so deflates the musings and rantings of radicals and fundamentalists, of whatever stripe. Rather than being a "Christian Nation" from the beginning (with all the exclusionary, un-American, adherence to dogma and bigotry that phrase hides), America, at its core, has revered personal freedoms and freedom from fear, and that core is exactly the opposite from that the self-allegedly patriotic coalescence of practitioners of the above-referenced sub-groups have so avidly been visiting on America and its social compact. They generally couldn't be more un-American and less patriotic. Sad. Sad.
To: Cif
Thanks for providing a type of public square where discourse can be conducted.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Heresiarch
November 29, 2007 3:33 PM
@urbrben
"If you don't believe the son of god part, what's the point?"
What's the point of what, Christianity? Good question.
"Problem is all the nice stuff is written in a book that talks about him as the son of god. If you don't believe the son of god bit, why should you believe the rest is anything other than literature?"
Personally, I don't. I do however believe that it's literature about an historical person. People write novels about Shakespeare or Marilyn Monroe or Elvis. It doesn't mean they didn't exist.
WML insists on seeing absolute proof for the existence of J.C. He knows that absolute proof doesn't exist, and on that basis imagines he has won the argument. What form could such evidence take? He wasn't an emperor: there are no statues on him. His head wasn't on the coins. If something came to light purporting to be corroborative evidence - a letter from Pilate to Tiberius saying "I crucified this really interesting guy the other day", for example - it would probably be dismissed as a forgery. So there isn't any final definitive proof. I get it. My point is, so what?
If the gospels and the letters of Paul assume that Jesus existed, and expect other people to assume it, then all other things being equal the likelihood is that he did exist. Occam's razor.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WTIngle
November 29, 2007 3:47 PM
watermelon: "Being an atheist excludes you from being part of society (and almost certainly will result in your death in most) in almost all Middle Eastern countries and the US."
Dear watermelon:
This is a most ridiculous statement; clearly you don't reside in the U.S. or, if so, it must be in some strange and isolated enclave.
"One of the most frightening aspects of the rise of the Religious right in America is the absolute inability of an atheist to attain political office there now, and I suspect this position may come in other liberal democracies sooner rather than later."
a.) Politicians tend to create false public personae; our political personalities are all actors and actresses strutting about on the stage and this has been true in all places where this subspecies exists, for thousands of years. There may well be a great many atheists in office who pretend to be otherwise, but how would anyone know?
b.) The religious right is in slowly growing disarray, for several major reasons, and this is likely to accelerate.
c.) Millions of Americans, atheists or not, are opposed to the religious right; the key to politics is effective organization, and organizing takes time, even as public sentiment slowly swings first in one direction, then another, only occasionally gripped by dramatic events that generate sudden shifts.
d.) Even so, what _is_ genuinely frightening is the penetration of the industrial military complex by zealous believers. (An Internet search on "Christian Fundamentalists" +"U.S. military" will bring up all kinds of disheartening information.)
As an American citizen, I am certain that the abysmal failure of the present regime will, in time, lead to its replacement by those who will root out the above; it has no place in a modern Western society possessing massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, there's no reason not to allow anyone to express what they wish; those listening can listen with enthusiasm, walk away in disgust, or simply ignore what they choose to ignore. BS is BS, no matter what flavor it comes in, and a more fundamental right (or, rather, is this a natural ability requiring no formal legal mechanism?) is that of allowing any individual to decide what is or is not BS.
Behavior beyond speech is a different matter. If George Bush were to rise and deliver a speech at Speaker's Corner, that would be one thing; were he instead to act upon his beliefs, invade countries, ruin America's prestige, impinge on guaranteed freedoms, and set the country on a disastrous and ruinous course, that would be altogether different. This would have to be dealt with, sooner or later; such behavior cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
Regards
Bill I.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
dfeinmann
November 29, 2007 3:47 PM
@ChooChoo "But most people's knowledge of science is gained, at least in part, on authority. and this is true of aspects of the knowledge of scientists themselves. (My dear old best friend from college, a Dawkinsite and PhD student in biochemistry agrees. If he says so, then...). And there is nothing unreasonable in this: without it, we'd never learn in the first place."
That's an interesting point you raise. It seems to me that, in the urge to score in a debate, people can confuse a (valid) reason for accepting/rejecting a position with an attempt to dis/prove it as fact.
The expert credentials or previous from of an author do not prove their point. But, particularly if there has been substansive debate and confirmation of any facts used, there is nothing wrong with adding those credentials to the scales. Especially in what amounts to a (mostly) friendly discussion between non-experts.
Often, claims of "ad hominem" (sometimes with reference to a personal insult - not really the same thing) or "ad verecundiam" remind me of when football players' arms go swinging up to claim a handball or foul - as if the use of these (technical) fallacies in itself invalidates a position.
There is a difference between the attempt to establish a particular point , a reason to provisionally accept a point, and a way of contextualising a discussion (e.g. "this writer has form", "this writer is actually a homeopath" - both technically ad hominem arguements).
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nocoenyppah
November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
@DavidPollock
'But a secular state is not an atheist state. Atheists cannot expect to be persuasive if their arguments depend on atheist premises any more than Christians can with Christian premises.'
The first sentence I heartily agree with.
The second, I have my qualms. Christians and ALL other religions base their appeal on 'a leap of faith' which atheists simply cannot compete with since 'faith' is not any part of him/her. An atheist argues that nothing presented to him in any way gives him cause to believe in any existential being/s, benevolent or otherwise.
An atheist has no premises.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Abahachi
November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
Obviously the 'historical Jesus' argument is a diversion from the main thread, but it's very interesting - not least for the question of why it matters. It's obvious why the Christians are determined to interpret all the evidence available in what I would consider to be a prejudicial manner in order to demonstrate to their own satisfaction not only that Jesus existed but that he was the Son of God, rose from the dead etc. I'm still puzzled as to why certain non-Christians should be equally determined to explain away all the evidence in order to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that he didn't exist. It is as if they wish to prove that *everything* about Christianity is wrong.
We have no personal writings from Jesus; we have no personal writings from a very large number of other people from antiquity either. We have no accounts - since WML automatically rejects any accounts from within the Christian tradition - of people who met him; again, true of lots of people whose historicity is not in doubt. What we do have are references in a number of non-Christian texts, most notably Josephus (undoubtedly embellished by a later Christian writer, but scholarly consenus is that the core of the account is genuine) and Tacitus, neither of whom had obvious grounds for making it up. There is circumstantial evidence, namely that no surviving source uses the non-existence of its founder as an argument against Christianity, and the indications are that writers like Celsus researched the subject quite thoroughly; on the contrary, their major argument against Christianity was precisely that its founder was only a man, and one put to death as a common criminal. Of course, Celsus' work survives only because it was quoted by later Christian writers in order to refute him, so relevant passages might have been left out - but it seems more likely that Christian apologists convinced of the historicity of their founder would have seized on the opportunity to ridicule such an argument. Finally there's Occam's Razor; it seems more plausible that Christianity, professing to follow a man who had died barely fifty years before its first surviving writings were produced, was indeed devoted to someone who had actually existed, than that the whole thing is an elaborate conspiracy. If nothing else, what was the point?
The comparison with other historical figures is interesting. There is actually a reasonable historical argument that a real person might lie at the root of the Arthur myth - essentially you can establish a historical space within which someone might have existed whose activities might then have given rise to the legends - whereas the evidence for Robin Hood, partly because it's entirely contradictory, doesn't provide any particular reason for believing in his existence - which doesn't prove that he didn't, simply that there's insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
I know this isn't going to be convincing to someone who's already made up their mind - when the evidence is so scattered and fragmentary, as it is for any aspect of ancient history, then it can always be explained away.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DavidTheLiberal
November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
It is not before time that someone started this debate, and I believe that Timothy Garton Ash has done an outstanding job. Yes, a complete discussion would take a book (or two) but in my opinion there are a couple of essential features of a modern post-enlightenment society, as follows:
1) There should be complete freedom of speech unless there is a very good reason to limit it.
2) There should be complete freedom of religious belief abd practice unless there is a very good reason to limit it.
3) There should be complete freedom of action unless there is a very good reason to limit it.
Taking the first point, a learned judge (Holmes?) once told us that freedom of speech did not mean that someone can shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. That example illustrates the point excellently. Our laws should not allow freedom of speech when that speech can do damage to society. Currently we do not allow incitement to hatred or to crime. Personally I would say that these restrictions are correct, but it is legitimate to debate them.
But it is not legitimate to restrict my freedom of speech just because my opinion might upset others. I have no time for the government's current attempts to prevent criticism of religion. In my opinion, both the current pope and his predecessor have done huge harm to society. This opinion will undoubtedly upset many Catholics who are free to disagree with me, but not to silence me. Similarly I would put my belief in Jesus's existence at about 70%, and in his divinity at exactly 0%. The Blasphemy law, which prevents me from expressing this opinion, has no place in a modern society.
So clearly I am not a Christian and believe Christianity to be based on false myths. But that is only my opinion, and it would not occur to me to make it illegal for someone who believes differently to practice his Christian religion. So long as ....
To the best of my limited knowledge of Christianity, there is nothing in the actual practices of that religion that should not be allowed. But other religions might include human sacrifice in their practices; that is murder and must not be allowed. Yet other religions practice female mutilation; ditto.
Of course, if Jews and Christians really believed their texts and actually wanted to put adulterers and homosexuals to death, as per Leviticus, then their freedom of religious practice should also be restricted.
Basically - yes, I have read Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration and am much influenced by it - all religious practice should be allowed so long as said practice is not against the law. Female mutilation, forced marriage, murder of adulterers (or of anyone else for that matter) are against the law and must not be tolerated even though they may be an integral part of someone's religion.
There is at the moment, of course, a big debate over adoption by homosexuals. Our legislators have decreed that no adoption agency may discriminate against homosexuals trying to adopt. By all means, do not introduce laws that are unnecessarily restrictive on certain religions, but Catholics must obey the law just as everyone else.
Freedom of action is somewhat different, but a similar point holds - the law must have a good reason in terms of protecting society before it can prevent people from doing as they wish. So, if consenting adults wish to mutilate each other in private, then there is absolutely no case for making their behaviour illegal however much some people dispapprove of their actions. It is not the function of the law to prevent citizens from acting foolishly.
Finally, it is necessary for all of us to distinguish between something being required by the law and something being permitted by it. As an example of the former, we must all fill in a tax return. But much of the debate, wrongly, concerns laws in the latter category. If the law permits divorce, or abortion, or even self-mutilation in private, that does not mean that citizens are required to do these things. If some religious Catholic lady believes abortion to be against her religion, then, fine, she simply does not have one. But she must not be able to prevent another lady, with different beliefs, from having one.
I like to consider what I call the 'kosher food' principle. The Old Testament clearly spells out the Jewish dietary laws. So Jews believe that they are divinely commanded not to eat unksoher food. But there is no movement by Jews here, or even in Israel to the best of my knowledge, to make the consumption of unkosher food illegal. Jews realise that the fact that it is legal to eat unkosher food does not mean that they have to do so. Would that Europe's Christian leaders - Protestant and Catholic alike - could shake of the centuries of the law enforcing the dominant view of Christianity and show a similar acceptance of the rights of other beliefs.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
finniestoncrane
November 29, 2007 4:06 PM
David the Liberal
It was Oliver Wendell Holmes junior who said the First Amendment would not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Unfortunately, he was addressing a group who had peacefully protested against conscription. Holmes decided it was insubordination and that the First Amendment didn't protect them. But who would argue against either peaceful protest or opposing conscription now?
http://thepamphleteeruk.blogspot.com/
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
exArmy
November 29, 2007 4:12 PM
What does a free society require of believers and non-believers alike?
Shut up and get on with your life
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
baldric
November 29, 2007 4:19 PM
I agree with most of what TGA says, but I think it should be spelt out clearer that where certain values clash with liberal values, the latter should prevail - even over democracy. Democracy is often assumed to be synonymous with liberalism. But Mill was wary of what he called the Tyranny of the Majority, which is why liberalism is, in my view, more important than democracy. It is possible to have an enlightened dictatorship (perhaps something resembling Cuba) and an oppressive democracy, where, for example, a permanent majority presides over a minority without the guarantees of liberal values (a clear danger in the case of Iraq). The ideal, of course, is a liberal democracy, but they should not be conflated.
Perhaps as an aside, we liberals should make the point more vociferously that liberalism is far from being woolly-minded. The genius of liberalism, in my view, is that rather than trying to predict from existing economic arrangements what society will, or should, become (like socialism), it imposes values on society and assigns universal rights on all persons whether or not they want them or are aware of them. The aim is to establish that these rights, as well as being a privilege, are a burden in as much they are reciprocal and inalienable. The first means that rights-holders are obliged to respect and protect the rights of others, and the latter that they cannot be relinquished, even by the possessor, although they may be breached - in the case of criminals, for example. This is a very powerful position, hardly woolly-minded, and one that has enabled organisations like Amnesty International to flourish.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
faustroll
November 29, 2007 4:21 PM
A nice statement of the liberal basics, which of course are very appealing when compared to fundamentalist politics, but I'm afraid it's too late save liberalism. You guys had a good long run but it's over. You'll never mobilize large numbers of people these days with rather thin, formal notions along the lines of "believe whatever you like, but religion is private; we're all equal before the law, but let the market take its course and give us billionaires and millions of poor and unemployed."
Religion is not and cannot be "private." It's the Word of God and God tells us many things about how to run society. If you can't come up with a substantive secular ideology that can replace religion (I still think socialism is the best and most beautiful ideal for the job), you won't win the battle. Telling people "here's your 'equal opportunity,' now run with it" is not working. You have to replace what capitalism destroys, a meaningful vision of life.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 4:23 PM
Heresiarch : "WML insists on seeing absolute proof for the existence of J.C."
Nonsense - I am asking for the historical evidence that people claim exists. I accept Paul as historical on less than absolute proof and as he mentions Cephas I rate him as an historical person.
Heresiarch : "What form could such evidence take? He wasn't an emperor: there are no statues on him. His head wasn't on the coins."
Any decent evidence would do, a letter by someone claiming that they had actually met him would be a good start. His own writings would be another. In the myths he is portrayed as educated and influential so one might reasonably expect that either his own writings of that one one of his supposedly many powerful and rich contacts might survive.
Heresiarch : "If something came to light purporting to be corroborative evidence - a letter from Pilate to Tiberius saying "I crucified this really interesting guy the other day", for example - it would probably be dismissed as a forgery. So there isn't any final definitive proof. I get it. My point is, so what?"
Thats pretty outrageous, claiming that people like me would deliberately ignore primary evidence! Of course any alleged letter would be tested to see if it was a forgery as there has been a lot of it about.
Heresiarch : "If the gospels and the letters of Paul assume that Jesus existed, and expect other people to assume it, then all other things being equal the likelihood is that he did exist. Occam's razor."
The same argument could be used to claim that William Tell was a real person. Or King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood. I'd suggest that the reverse applies and that a real person would have friends and family who would prove he wasn't really 'God' at all. I wouldn't claim it as a clinching argument though.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MmeEAB
November 29, 2007 4:25 PM
Why do we so often see the word god or gods written with a capital letter, when so many of us do not even believe in it or them? We don't use a capital for fairies or goblins or other mythical creatures. When atheists appease godlovers in this manner it simply gives the creature(s) an importance it/they do not deserve, so why bother?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
dimlocator
November 29, 2007 4:29 PM
Good article, though the distinction between atheism & secularism is fairly obvious. You can be religious & a secularist (though it is unlikely you'd find an atheist that wasn't a secularist).
The key is that everybody has to accept that others may hold views you dislike or even find offensive. I find the wearing of the jilbab and niqab offensive, but, hey, let them get on with. Ditto creationism/intelligent design - just don't teach it in science class! Religionists however often kick up a fuss about perceived offensive statements.
Jihadisbad: the threat to your freedom is the UK government (elected by UK citizens), not the EU, which isn't just one institution but several. Next month the it will adopt & proclaim the Charter of Fundamental Rights, from which the UK has secured an opt out.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Aristides
November 29, 2007 4:30 PM
My dear Marxist friend
First let me state I am overjoyed to hear you are a Marxist because Marx -and the Prophet too- taught me justice. I am not saying we should allow everything in a liberal society, by all means we should always make a stand against authoritarianism but not condemn the perpetrators, prevent them but not hate them, even if we have to take their lives to protect our children, let us do it with respect for their human worth and grief we have to resort to violence rather than hate and condemnation. The same respect for the enemy as exemplified by Richard the Lionheart and Salahuddin applies to the -non-violent- stand the two of us have to make against the excesses of the sad -not evil- souls that dictate corporate globalisation. Amandla!
Aristides
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 4:33 PM
Abahachi : "We have no accounts - since WML automatically rejects any accounts from within the Christian tradition - of people who met him; again, true of lots of people whose historicity is not in doubt."
Nonsense. There are no accounts within the Christian tradition of people who met him. Not one.
Abahachi : "What we do have are references in a number of non-Christian texts, most notably Josephus (undoubtedly embellished by a later Christian writer, but scholarly consenus is that the core of the account is genuine) and Tacitus, neither of whom had obvious grounds for making it up."
They are not contemporaries and are merely repeating stories they have been told. They prove that there were Christians in the first Century AD and no more than that.
Abahachi : "There is circumstantial evidence, namely that no surviving source uses the non-existence of its founder as an argument against Christianity"
So what? The same can be said of Herakles. There is no surviving source that uses the non-existence of Heracles as an argument against his cult
Abahachi : "The comparison with other historical figures is interesting. There is actually a reasonable historical argument that a real person might lie at the root of the Arthur myth"
There might be one or one hundred Dark Ages warlords but most likely there is no real person behind the Arthur myth. Sorry to disappoint you.
Abahachi : "I know this isn't going to be convincing to someone who's already made up their mind - when the evidence is so scattered and fragmentary, as it is for any aspect of ancient history, then it can always be explained away."
What utter rot : a lot of ancient history has good surviving evidence for it, unlike Jesus who has none. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal are just three examples of well documented figures from the ancient world.
Should anyone produce any actual historical evidence for Jesus then I'd happily switch back to the position I held up to about 12-18 months ago before I started looking into all this.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Asterix
November 29, 2007 4:50 PM
Not all atheists are hostile to religion, but many think religion as a negative factor in human life. Here are some reasons:
Religion stops people thinking in a rational and objective way. It divides people, and is a cause of conflict and war. It doesn't give equal treatment to women and gay people, and therefore is against basic human rights. The hierarchical structure of most religions is anti-democratic and religion obstructs scientific research.
Not all atheists are proselytes like Dawkins. Atheism is less a form of religion and more an absence of belief for many. Most atheists are realists and would not expect the situation any change re religion or human conflict which are an innate part of the human psyche.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
longsword
November 29, 2007 4:54 PM
There is one anomaly here (amongst many) that runs like a red thread through the whole article: Liberalism itself emerged from a theological vision during the Reformation period, as did conservatism and socialism, also. What we today call "liberalism", "conservatism", or "socialism" were all distinguished by their forms of worship. But their theological precursors are still buried within them as tacit or hidden (but shared) "assumptions" that are simply elided when the discussion turns to the relation of both religion and political ideology to secularism.
Liberals were originally called "libertines" (as opposed to "primitivists", now called conservatives). Libertines rejected the mediation of institutional power (a "Good Shepherd") between man and God. The individual "conscience" was to be the sole justifiable mediator between the particular (the soul) and the absolute (or "God", or the part and the whole).
(Today, the liberal "conscience" has run into trouble with "the death of God". It no longer has a determinant object for its devotions, and latches on to anything that resembles "God" or the absolute. This is the problem of value "relativism" or value "pluralism" today.)
Primitivists (conservatives) insisted on the necessity of a preserving a "Good Shepherd" -- the insititutional Church -- to guide human beings rightly, and saw "conscience" alone as inadequate for that purpose.
Socialism emerged also out of the theological matrix, as the implementation of the Christian "communion" when Jesus elevated his disciples from servants to friends (ie, "no longer do I call you servants, but friends"). Communism may be a Christian "heresy", but it is no less so than liberalism or conservatism in that regard.
It is, therefore, quite false to look for the origins of liberalism in Locke, or Mill, or Smith, etc. They merely took the raw material of libertinism and worked it into ideology. But its true patrimony in Christian theology is unmistakable. The DNA of Christian theology is all over this baby. The contemporary secular and partisan ideologies all began as sects and as "parties of God". It would be better if this historical amnesia about the origins of the secular order were lifted from the mind.
In the emerging Global Era, we need more focus on those things that unite us, and which lead towards unanimity, and less on those that differentiate us, and distinguish and divide and discriminate between. The Planetary Era will fail without discovering the unity underlying all the diversity that could make for unanimity.
But, here's the problem, the very word "secular" pertains to the order of dividedness, differentiation, discriminating reason, division of labour, particulars, the plural "facts", orders of rank and of beginnings and endings, etc. The secular order divides and divides and divides into nations, tribes, genders, classes, parties, sects, occupations. In and of itself, it can provide no passage way to a consciousness of our unity as a whole that could sponsor a true globalism as the expression of life's unanimity.
It is pointless to look for this in an ideology, which is by definition, partisan itself.
It was William Blake's birthday yesterday, and there has been much discussion on CiF to mark the occasion. Blake did have a vision of human unanimity as the emergence of "integral Man", and it's relevance is even more important in the global era. Less ideology, more poetry, perhaps. And William Blake was a pioneer of globalism.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
PidlenBach
November 29, 2007 5:01 PM
Simple answer - Democratic rule of law, first.
God, second.
Follow this and we'll all get along.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Abahachi
November 29, 2007 5:01 PM
@WML; we're clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this one, since we have different approaches to the evaluation of historical interpretations. I'm briefly tempted to try a different tack - actually, what records might we imagine to have existed of a relatively obscure itinerant preacher whose fame is entirely posthumous, which might then somehow have survived? - but no. I feel I should say that I find your comments on other topics always interesting and generally reasonable, so I'm not dismissing you out of hand.
What I would really like to know is why this matters so much - and that links into the real subject of the article. Can religion co-exist with atheism if each side insists on trying to impose its truth on the other? What possibility is there of reaching some sort of agreement on how to conduct affairs within the public sphere if we insist on denigrating the deeply-held beliefs of others even when this is irrelevant to the matter in hand? I do start to worry - this isn't directly related to your posts - that we end up with mirror images: the religious reject secularism as creeping atheism, and the atheists reject it as creeping religion, because each really wants the other to be crushed rather than to reach any sort of accommodation.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
harbinger
November 29, 2007 5:02 PM
Islam starts from Islam...liberal from liberal....zzzzzz...great men, Churchill, Gandhi.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..Hilter...er, who?.........zzzzzzz....begs the question........zzzzzzzz...(wakes up) Wow, had a dream there that someone wrote an article in The Guardian about liberalism and something else. Nightmarish, I can tell you, had to clutch my Teddy for comfort. His name's Jesus by the way....
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Heresiarch
November 29, 2007 5:04 PM
@ longsword:
"It is, therefore, quite false to look for the origins of liberalism in Locke, or Mill, or Smith, etc. They merely took the raw material of libertinism and worked it into ideology. But its true patrimony in Christian theology is unmistakable. The DNA of Christian theology is all over this baby. The contemporary secular and partisan ideologies all began as sects and as "parties of God". It would be better if this historical amnesia about the origins of the secular order were lifted from the mind."
A very interesting and historically-informed post. However, it's a mistake, I think, to assume that because modern secularism emerged from a religious debate means that we should return to it, or that the religious debate still has any significance.
Butterflies emerge from a pupa, which was originally a caterpillar. Butterflies, however, can fly. Caterpillars can't.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
farfrom
November 29, 2007 5:06 PM
Bernard Shaw remarked that in middle class society it was verboten to discuss
politics , religion or sex.
Yet the Gaurdian is quintisentialy middle class and discusses continualy religion or politics but not sex.
Thinking of Blake, wasn't the poem about Englands Green and pleasant land
later adopted as a hymm in favour of free love?
"Bring me my arrows of desire " I suppose the Poem was about free love but not the hymm
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
justoffpeak
November 29, 2007 5:07 PM
Even some religious are getting to see secularism as possibly a good idea. A Hindu faith school hijacked by a sect; an orthodox Jewish school with its knickers in a twist over falling admissions.
I asked C of E vicar friends (v keen on 'ethical' C of E schools) - what if the only near school was Scientological?
Horror of horrors - 'but they're weird'.
Our only accessible schools are C of E - weird or what?
Certainly not liberal education.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bluejewel
November 29, 2007 5:14 PM
"However, it's a mistake, I think, to assume that because modern secularism emerged from a religious debate means that we should return to it, or that the religious debate still has any significance.
Butterflies emerge from a pupa, which was originally a caterpillar. Butterflies, however, can fly. Caterpillars can't."
Quite right. I grow vegetables in horseshit manure. The vegetables are delicious, but if anyone wants to eat the shit, well, it's a free country.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WTIngle
November 29, 2007 5:25 PM
faustroll: "Religion is not and cannot be "private." It's the Word of God and God tells us many things about how to run society. If you can't come up with a substantive secular ideology that can replace religion (I still think socialism is the best and most beautiful ideal for the job), you won't win the battle. Telling people "here's your 'equal opportunity,' now run with it" is not working. You have to replace what capitalism destroys, a meaningful vision of life."
Dear faustroll:
I submit that life is larger than religion, socialism, capitalism, or any "substantive secular ideology."
What passes for official guiding belief changes from place to place and over time; humanity is always coming up with new guiding belief to replace the old, some new universal truth, even while fumbling along from day to day, occasionally looking at the great mess they've created.
Seen from one stance, this is all great fun. Tired of the Pantheon and animal sacrifice? No problem, then; just wait awhile, and mobs will come and destroy the temples, the sacred statues. Tired of the Inquisition and the heavy hand of an official state religion? No problem; just wait a while and along comes the various Enlightenments, Martin Luther, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and so on. (None of these last prevent the eruption of World Wars I and II, of course, but then wars are part of the mix, too.)
Tired of scientific materialism and its squabbles with remnants of religion or even Spiritualism? No problem -- just wait a while and see what comes down the pike.
The same holds for all of the great secular ideologies; parts of these seem to work, for a while, but then these too fail, eventually, until some new variation shows up and gains sway.
Maybe, just possibly, once in a very great while, something pertaining to deeper inner realities does raise its head, achieving a general conscious awareness in the populace, influencing the structures and beliefs of societies, such that long periods of peace, stability, fairness, general harmony and understanding and so on arise.
(So far as I know, this last hasn't happened since the disruptions of the massive melting of the last Ice Age, but I could be mistaken.)
When you write ""Religion is not and cannot be "private." It's the Word of God.." I would give religion the lie, as I hold that only privately can anyone reach any effective knowing of who or what "God" is and what word, if any, such a being might or might provide:
"Say to the Court it glowes,
and shines like rotten wood,
Say to the Church it showes
whats good, and doth no good,
If Church and Court reply,
then give them both the lie.
Tell Potentates they live
acting by others action,
Not loved unlesse they give,
not strong but by affection,
If Potentates reply,
give Potentates the lie.
Tell men of high condition,
that mannage the estate,
Their purpose is ambition,
their practive only hate:
And if they once reply,
then give them all the lie."
(From The Lie, by the royal arse kissing favorite who lost his head by failing to kiss the next royal arse that came along, even after writing the first history of the world; come to think of it, we owe a popular version of the bible to that next royal arse. Someone should have blown a great cloud of tobacco smoke in his direction.)
Regards
Bill I.
http://www.realitytest.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
NYKNYK
November 29, 2007 5:50 PM
So what is more desirable: Freedom OF Religion or Freedom FROM Religion? I think that the only way to get the former is to target the latter in our collective lives.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
boltonian
November 29, 2007 5:53 PM
An excellent article.
Re-the off-topic historical Jesus debate it might be helpful to use an analogy. Much of our evidence for scientific theory is indirect. Nobody has seen a quark, for example, or even directly detected one but their existence and properties fit the available facts. Theory, of course, is not certainty but it reflects the current state of our knowledge, imperfect though it undoubtedly is. Very few people here, I imagine, are experts in quantum theory but most of us would accept the consensus of those that are.
I am not a biblical scholar but I have been interested in the historical evidence for what subsequently became a hugely influential world-wide religion for more than 30 years. The evidence, like that for quarks, for a historical character on whom the letters of Paul and the Gospels might be based, is indirect. Almost all experts in the field, however, agree that such a person is more likely than not to have existed - I have not examined the source data but I have listened to their arguments. Likewise I have not read the detailed mathematical justification for the existence of quarks. The conclusions of the experts in both cases leads me to think that, on the balance of the evidence available to us at this time, they are probably more right than not. Evidence might appear tomorrow that utterly refutes both, so be it - theory is not truth.
Why should we demand more rigour (and a higher standard of proof) in the evaluation of the one than the other?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
longsword
November 29, 2007 5:54 PM
@heresiarch
"A very interesting and historically-informed post. However, it's a mistake, I think, to assume that because modern secularism emerged from a religious debate means that we should return to it, or that the religious debate still has any significance."
Do you mean the debate? or to religion? If debate, we are already into it. If to religion, then I nominate the religion of Nietzsche and William Blake.
Its wholly a mistake to assume that the secular ideologies are less theologically informed than the religious ideologies. The precursors have only slid into the unconscious, where they work their will despite our overt rhetoric to the contrary. Neo-liberalism is a case in point, in which the liberal "conscience", after the "death of God" and "the end of history", has merely transferred its allegiance, its devotions, and its zeal from a transcendental god to the "invisible hand" and to the market place as secular altar and church. And in the operational names for the Middle East Wars, "operation infinite justice" in Afghanistan or "Shock and Awe" in Iraq (or "Divine Strake") borrow from the idiom of theology to cloak themselves in mantles of righteousness.
Bringing those moralistic and theological imperatives that still work their way with us through "the" unconscious is necessary today. Then, maybe, we can begin to talk sensibly with other parts of the earth where these theologically derived motives are less covert and more overt.
@bluejewel: "I grow vegetables in horseshit manure. The vegetables are delicious, but if anyone wants to eat the shit, well, it's a free country."
What an ignorant comment. You can't grow anything in "shit" unless its composted, in which case it's no longer shit, its living soil. But the word "soil" and "soul" are related terms (as are "human" and "humus"). So, if you wish to think you grew up also from shit and as shit, be my guest.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 6:15 PM
Abahachi : "I'm briefly tempted to try a different tack - actually, what records might we imagine to have existed of a relatively obscure itinerant preacher whose fame is entirely posthumous, which might then somehow have survived?"
So we're no longer talking about 'Jesus' then, because in the myths he is anything but obscure. This is like asking what records might have survived of a relatively obscure Dark Ages warlord. The latter would not be King Arthur any more than your hypothetical wandering exorcist would be 'Jesus'. There were doubtless many of them at the time and who knows how many dozens were called 'Yeshua'.
Abahachi : "What I would really like to know is why this matters so much - and that links into the real subject of the article. Can religion co-exist with atheism if each side insists on trying to impose its truth on the other?"
I really object to this idea that there are multiple "truths" and that Christian myth is as valid as Science or History. It doesn't particularly matter whether or not the 'King Joshua' character was based on a real person any more than it matters whether the 'King Arthur' was.
Abahachi : "What possibility is there of reaching some sort of agreement on how to conduct affairs within the public sphere if we insist on denigrating the deeply-held beliefs of others even when this is irrelevant to the matter in hand?"
Far more than if we let people get away with talking complete nonsense unchallenged jsut because they claim it to be a deeply-held belief. I might claim a deep belief that the moon is made of cheese but you'd be an idiot to not challenge me on this and to let it pass out of misguided 'respect'.
Abahachi : "I do start to worry - this isn't directly related to your posts - that we end up with mirror images: the religious reject secularism as creeping atheism, and the atheists reject it as creeping religion, because each really wants the other to be crushed rather than to reach any sort of accommodation."
I have never heard an atheist reject secularism! Why on earth would an atheist do that? It makes no sense to me. I can see why religious people object to Science, Reason and Liberalism. Have there been any instances of atheists objecting to secularism?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 6:16 PM
boltonian : "Why should we demand more rigour (and a higher standard of proof) in the evaluation of the one than the other?"
A Physicist can direct you to the evidence for the existence of the Quark.
Which Historian can direct me to the evidence for the existence of Jesus?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WheatFromChaff
November 29, 2007 6:25 PM
WoollyMindedLiberal
"WheatFromChaff : "The Nag Hammadi scrolls were written by people claiming first hand knowledge of Jesus."
"What is the weather like on your planet?"
A bit milder than it has been, but still nippy. At least its not raining.
How about yours?
ubrben
"Yes of course hearsay is evidence, and yes it's not brilliant evidence. This is why I choose not to live my life by the hearsay of 2000 years ago. We learnt a lot since then..."
Apart from the last sentence (which is debateable:-), I quite agree. I'm pretty sure (although purely on the basis of hearsay evidence) that Caligula existed also - but that does not make me want to worship him.
WoollyMindedLiberal
"Any decent evidence would do, a letter by someone claiming that they had actually met him would be a good start."
The Book of Thomas the Contender (one of the Nag Hammadi documents), begins with this line:
"The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I, Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one another."
How's that?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
peitha
November 29, 2007 6:38 PM
TGA: I wonder if, in reading the comments you begin to appreciate the problem. As a Christian (with the, in this context, minor quibble that obviously I believe there is a God which you don't), there is nothing in your article with which I would disagree regarding the secular state.
Of course, despite your attempts to redraw the battle lines between those who believe there should be no interference from the state in personal beliefs and those who believe there should be. The odd thing is that there are religious and non-religious on both sides of your battle lines. Somewhat depressingly the debate I believe you tried to engender has simply fallen back into slanging between those who think theistic beliefs should be imposed and those who believe atheistic beliefs should be imposed.
You can see the latter pretty clearly for example in the posts that argue religion should be 'eliminated'. Also in the posts that bundle all religions together in order that all may be tarred with the same brush.
I'm afraid your position is likely to be as hopeless as if you tried to get intelligent argument here on whether religion has historically hijacked the state or whether the state historically hijacked religion, (I suggest the history of the early Roman Catholic church tends to support the latter btw, other views welcome).
From my pov it always seems that one of the intellectual arguments against the atheist view at a societal/national level is that it can't succeed in creating a stable society. The reason being that all the supposedly intellectual atheist arguments are only that, intellectual arguments. They fail to engage the emotional side of people unless the emotional element becomes an emotional distrust (in the case of some posting here bordering on hatred) of the religious. After all, why should an athiest really care about what a religious person believes rather than the secular position you suggest. States need histories that engage with their citizens emotionally as well as intellectually. Without such emotionally engaging national histories, what do you get? Answer: Belgium if you're lucky, civil war if you're not.
With respect, TGA, if you want to push a secular tolerant agenda, and I have no reason to disbelieve you wen you say you do, I suspect you need to consider carefully who your allies are and who your enemies. You may be surprised to find that many of those who agree with you are actually the religious among us. Particularly those of us from religious groups who don't wish to force or views on others because we consider that to be God's work to do, not ours. (Ours being only to put the offer of God before others, what they then do is up to them). Your enemies may well be many of the emotionally charged atheists (like some posting here) who don't agree with your live and let live philosophy preferring instead a dogmatic imposition of their atheism on others.
Best of luck ...
PS For those who compare the atheist view as a butterfly growing from the religious caterpillar, remember, butterflies in turn produce caterpillars, not butterflies. (Or in terms you might prefer, with acknowledgement to Dawkins; is elephant DNA how elephants reproduce or are elephants how elephant DNA reproduces?)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
dionysusreborn
November 29, 2007 6:39 PM
A decent article, especially as it is quite incredible how often secularism and atheism are conflated on religious debates on Cif. There was some discussion on the Putney Debates last month, it is worth remembering that the Levellers were great proponents of religious freedom and to a lesser degree Cromwell and the grandees of the New Model Army. In 1648, the Presbytarians in the Long Parliamant were passed the Blasphemy Ordinance, possibly one of the most draconian llasphemy laws that England has ever seen that threatened many Protestant dissidents with the death penalty for heresy.
Yet, after Pride's purge dispensed of the Long Parliament, the inter-regnum was known for religious exremism but secularism too became popular. Cromwell was a most Godly man but also one who granted more religious freedom than the Kings of England had ever done. It was during this era that secular ideas grew amongst Protestant dissidents like Quakers and Baptists that would massive influence Locke and other enlightenment thinkers.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
SaraB1
November 29, 2007 6:41 PM
TonyChinnery
November 29, 2007 10:07 AM
"If we look at history we see that religion and war have always been associated."
Actually, if we look at history we see that war and nations/tribal factions/pirates/imperialists/religions and ideologies (i.e. human societies), have always been associated.
"We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the main purpose of religion is war."
We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the purpose of human society is war? Or perhaps that the purpose may have something to do with evolution beyond the desire for domination.
"Ever since groups of humans have been fighting for territory, we have been creating ways of dividing each other into groups. Two groups can only go to war if there is an unequivocal divide between them."
Absolutely.
"And religion, the unshakable belief in some nonsense, has been the preferred method."
Absolutely wrong. It has been 'a' preferred method since it confers the supposed sanction of the Almighty. But anything will do really. Liebensraum, oil or gold, the year 0, oil or gold, a new purge for the ideological good, oil or gold, ethnic cleansing, ancient tribal grievances, oil, gold and, oh yes... just occasionally real religious issues (rather than greed or racial hatred with the word religion tacked on for the 'warrant').
Now, about that business of the purpose of human society...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
boltonian
November 29, 2007 6:43 PM
WML:
In answer to your question: almost all the historians that I have read on the subject.
The evidence for quarks is indirect, as is the evidence for a historical figure on which Paul and the Gospels were based.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
HeartLess
November 29, 2007 7:06 PM
I wasn't going to comment here until the news came that the teacher had been sentenced to 15 days for the teddy bear nonsense. Now will someone please explain to me why Islam isn't at least part of the problem? Do follows of that Religion really support this? How the hell do you expect us to respect your beliefs when nonsense such as this occurs? Come on, I'm sure that many here want to know the answer. I certainly do!
I despise all religions, but on a scale of one to ten of stupidity Islam is really off the scale.
As for the historical existence of Jesus, well if we were talking about anyone else then the answer would have to be probably not because I'm sorry the primarily source evidence is almost non-existent, although other evidence is strong. So on the balance of probabilities it is likely that he, or a man like him, existed. But then the so what question comes to mind. He was not the Son of God because no such beast exists. His followers, most importantly Paul were able to form a religion that was able to become the official religion of the Roman Empire although it would be a brave historian that asserted that it was ever fully adopted by the majority of the population, in the Western provinces.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
miteT1
November 29, 2007 7:10 PM
I'm going to print this article out and keep it.
Whichever Enlightenment you choose it seems a shame that centuries later there are so many believers in the superstitions we call religion.
One other thing, when discussing the problems caused by religious superstition let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: the role of Anglo-Protestant values.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WilliamHG
November 29, 2007 7:16 PM
This is an excellent article from TGA. I also liked a recent article from TGA which proposed that we should all use the term "jihadist" when talking or writing about ... you know who. This is a brilliant idea, since it clearly identifies the enemy, but avoids alienating our potential allies, that is all those good Muslims throughout the world (millions of them) in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Europe and elsewhere, who shudder at the thought of a jihadist (or Wahhabist, or Salafist) theocracy ruining their lives. Language is important, and TGA's suggestion should be taken up by all responsible commentators.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
fearfulatheist
November 29, 2007 7:27 PM
@peitha
"Somewhat depressingly the debate I believe you tried to engender has simply fallen back into slanging between those who think theistic beliefs should be imposed and those who believe atheistic beliefs should be imposed."
You've made the unforgivable mistake of assuming that atheists have "beliefs". We don't. Which part of "we don't believe in god" do you regard as an "atheist belief"? Since we don't have beliefs, you cannot accuse us of wishing to impose them on anyone.
The problem is that the religious, of all varieties, do believe in things (gods, pixies, hobgoblins, angels, etc., etc) for which they have no evidence. Until the world realises that giving such deluded people any power or influence is a dangerous mistake, the deluded will carry on killing the innocent as they have done for thousands of years.
I'm prepared to let the religious live with their delusions, but I'm not going to let them run my life.
So please rephrase your comment as "slanging between those who think theistic beliefs should be imposed and those who think theistic beliefs should not be imposed". It's a theocracy or a secular society. Does there really have to be a debate?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
peitha
November 29, 2007 8:06 PM
@fearfulatheist; sorry but you're simply using the term atheist incorrectly. If your belief is the negative statement "I don't believe in God" then you're an agnostic. If you make the positive statement, "I believe that God does not exist", then you're an atheist, and you do have a belief system.
Similarly, you've also made the intellectually lazy accusation which if you'd read the other posts here you wouldn't have made, of lumping all religions together and suggesting that all religions seek earthly power and would kill the innocents given earthly power. It's not at all historically uncommon for religions which reject earthly power to be the ones getting killed.
Your further comment that, "I'm prepared to let the religious live with their delusions, but I'm not going to let them run my life." shows your confusion since my point was that on the live and let live side of the argument are many religious people. Your error of logic is that you've assumed that ALL religions desire to run your life rather than wanting you to run your own life in a particular way but leaving the choice and responsibility to you whether or not you wish to.
So, no, I see no reason to rephrase my earlier comment, a desire to force atheistic beliefs on others is every bit as wrong as a desire to force theistic belief.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DavidPollock
November 29, 2007 8:28 PM
nocoenyppah -
You say "An atheist argues that nothing presented to him in any way gives him cause to believe in any existential being/s, benevolent or otherwise. An atheist has no premises."
But if an atheist put forward in the public sphere an argument that depended on there being no god(s), that would be just as meaningless and unpersuasive to believers as an argument based on salvation by faith would be for atheists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
enkidu2
November 29, 2007 8:29 PM
"Secularism, in my view, should be an argument about arrangements for a shared public and social life"
Fair enough Tim, but doesn't this just push the conflict into another arena? What if adherents of any religion really believe that men and women are not equal, and that laws against, say, blasphemy and homosexuality should be part of the arrangements for a shared public and social life?
These issues are or have been divisive enough within a culture let alone in a multicultural setting. If there is no common cultural agreement, there will be no agreement on the basis of public arrangements
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WoollyMindedLiberal
November 29, 2007 8:39 PM
boltonian : "In answer to your question: almost all the historians that I have read on the subject."
In that case I look forward to your directing me to the historical evidence since you claim to have it at your fingertips.
Only a cynical person would be suspicious that you have been unable to share this information already. I shall be an optimist and assume you have been merely saving it until now to whet my appetite!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bluejewel
November 29, 2007 8:42 PM
@longsword
"So, if you wish to think you grew up also from shit and as shit, be my guest."
As invitations go, I have to say it is not the best I have ever had, but having read the rest of your post I can see that I ought, out of common courtesy, to gratefully acknowledge that it extends to the absolute limits of your generosity and ability.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
theendarm
November 29, 2007 8:50 PM
fearfulatheist
November 29, 2007 3:09 PM
@theendarm
The obvious reason that TGA and I can't prove that god doesn't exist is simply because he doesn't. Therefore there is no evidence for his existence or non-existence (how can there be?), and therefore no rational person will believe that he exists. Just as there is no evidence that Muhammad did, or did not, go to the moon. You can't prove he didn't, but you don't therefore believe he did.
If that concept is beyond you, your request for respect for your beliefs is both arrogant and mischievous. All you want is tolerance to believe nonsense. You won't get it here
no fearful atheist the reason why you can`t prove the existence or non existence of god is simply because pure reason cannot be used to establish a metaphysical truth.
it is the wrong faculty - faith is not based on reason but free will..
faith is not rational or irrational but intutive ...
as muslims we have a hierachy of truth .
we believe divine revelation as oppose to human reason is the absolute criteria for truth.
we believe there is a hierachy of truth with divine revelation at the apex followed by the sunna of the prophet and then human reason.
we surrender to the book and follow the box.
in contrast to human reason which can only get you from a to be - divine revelation gets you from a to z.
as the world gets older the quran get`s younger.
the world is moving day by day towards the quranic framework.
society will eventually become islamic through adoption of islamic morality- STOP !! before you come out with a straw man version of Islam.
ultimately it is faith versus doubt .......
we don`t believe in existentialism or fatalism but in taqdeer and it is the divine degree of destiny which will determine the outcome of the clash betweem reason and revelation as the absolute criteria for truth.
if reason is the absolute secular modernity triumphs - if the quran is the absolute criteria for truth islam triumphs.
in the meantime lets try find a middle position where we can peaceful coexist - but as far as I am aware a absolute truth will never be accomodated in a relative framework.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
skiergolfer
November 29, 2007 8:51 PM
GIVEPIECEACHANCE -- The old testament is Jewish to the extent that it is the Torah and they do not accept the new testament. Christians accept the old Testament, otherwise no ten commandments. Abraham is old Testament and christians accept him as do muslims. Personally I prefer Aesops fables as a better read.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
LesterJones
November 29, 2007 8:58 PM
@ the Jesus existing business
Interesting though isnt it, that WoolyMindedLiberal has been asking this same question for months and months now and so far has failed to be batted down.
It may well be that Jesus did exist, as posters often suggest, theres little proof he didnt, but nonetheless, the longer Wooly can ask without being given a full stop the more entertainng it becomes.
@boltonian
With the greatest respect (which I hope you know I have) is it really possible to compare human cultural history to experimentation and theory in physics. Whilst physics has a future the historical evidence for Jesus has only a past, and whilst physics is based on rigorous method, human history is quite weak at the knees (hope your well).
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
