The State of Faith – Politics, religion and the state.
“New Humanist event in partnership with IPPR will examine the role of religion in society.”
Public Policy Research
“Provides a forum for writing and debate on the major policy issues of the day, publishing the finest international writers and thinkers, including academics, practitioners and politicians”
New Humanist
British Humanist Journal Published by the Rationalist Association.
I went to the IPPR/NH conference on March 21st, its title The State of Faith, Politics, religion and the state
What was its aim?
From the title and the organisations concerned I expected it to be about humanist concerns about the current political trends, and developments in humanist political thinking on political issues such as education, health, welfare and social policy, the environment etc. I was perhaps wrong to assume that ‘humanism’ meant modern secular humanism. The audience of some 240 people came from over 150 organisations as diverse as The National Secular Society to the Evangelical Alliance and the Muslim Council of Great Britain, from universities, charities and pressure groups and individuals so it was perhaps just as well that there was little time for audience participation.
The IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) is promoted as “the most influential think tank in the UK”. I have heard it called as ‘left leaning’ and ‘progressive’. But this conference presented nothing new about the effect of religion on current politics in Britain, nor from a humanist point of view, any discernable effect of humanism on politics. The two politicians who spoke, Charles Clarke and David Blunket added nothing new. Both simply reiterated New Labour’s agenda of pandering to the religions demands, that has been pursued for many years now and there was no critique of the policies they represented and supported. Nor was there any presentation of alternative secular strategies. So one must wonder who was presenting what to whom and to what purpose?
Enlightenment?
The first part of the meeting was entitled ‘The End of the Enlightenment?’ with two professors putting their different interpretations of the use to which it has been put in justifying opposite political stances. But what we need is not endless rehashing of the first ‘Enlightenment’ comparing degrees of belief and the interpretations put on its effects, but a New Enlightenment that compares the current religious agendas with the prospect of a secular humanist political agenda. With the evidence of the malign effects of religion, superstition and sectarianism, the advantage of historical hindsight and modern media that allows us to see what is going on around the world it should not be too difficult to see the need for change.
Academics philosophising between themselves has been the general pattern of the occasional flowerings of freethought over the centuries. – In this case discussing differing interpretations of the Enlightenment effect on politics then and now. They quoted the usual male philosophers of the enlightenment, most of whom would not call themselves atheist since at that time it was a punishable offence. Blasphemy and calling oneself an atheist was at that time a hanging offence! Among these men, only the Frenchman Baron d’Holbach and some of his friends in France openly called themselves atheists.
A Missing Perspective
There was of course no recognition of the courageous British and American feminists of the 17th and 18th century, who pioneered atheism and secularism campaigning wrote and travelled the country, lecturing at mass meetings, openly espousing atheism and women’s rights, progressive social change; and against the church and its attitudes and teaching, against persecution of native American Indians and against slavery. They were pilloried and treated abominably, by ministers and politicians alike. From Mary Woolstencraft, Ernestine Rose, Francis Wright, Margaret Sanger to the present day, women have been at the forefront of secularism and atheism and political change. (Fifty of them have been recognised in an anthology edited by Annie Laurie Gaylor in her book Women Without Superstition “No Gods No Masters”) – yet today, feminist activism and social issues which should be at the forefront of humanist campaigning, are shunned by the humanist movement Only the extremes of Islam attract censure. The continuing inequality of women in Britain, in the home, the workplace, in pay, pensions and child support, in politics and social policy are not now recognised as stemming from 1900 years of Christian attitudes. Yet there is research that shows that one of the mistakes made by the Democratic political campaign in the last US election, was in not putting forward the social issues of health and welfare – causes dear to the hearts of women and secular- humanists. Like British humanism, American Democrats, according to one researcher took the middle of the road position that did not satisfy anyone.[2]
One speaker asserted that the value of the enlightenment lay in “confronting authority”, and it occurred to me that one of the most pernicious, yet hidden systems of authority is that of academic exclusivity. Throughout history, religion has used its ownership and control of education to sustain political, religious and social control.
Sociological Political Research
In fact the only new factual development reported at the conference was the research done by Dr Pippa Norris, linking religious observance with human insecurity as measured mainly by economic factors in the wealth of nations. This importantly identifies one of the major influences on political belief as – as human insecurity.
This is mainly to be seen in poor countries in which there is a high degree of religious observance, where poverty is the main cause of insecurity. She did of course note the paradox of the United States. But she did not, I think, at this time, link the dominant right wing political attitudes and policies of a wealthy country, that keeps millions of its own citizens on the brink of destitution, with no work, health or welfare provision to the extent of religiosity in the US today [3]
One member of the audience questioned the reason for the relative lack of religious belief in Russia. But again the political point was not made, that the while communism under dictatorship, may have had the dire results of tyranny for many, it also provided a new and improved level of education, personal health and welfare provision – relative to the history starvation and subjection of the peasants under its previous feudal Tsarist regimes. And the same pattern of relatively low religious observance is to be seen in the countries of the old USSR until those aspects of progress were halted at the end of the cold war. Countries that may have voted for democracy, little realising that they were voting for reduced public services and American capitalism. It can also be seen that those developed countries such as Scandinavia in which there is the physical security of states with well developed health and welfare and adequate income, have lower levels of religious belief.
On a similarly important aspect of religion and politics in the US, Susan Page reported in US Today in 2002 research that showed clearly the political effects of religion on political opinion and on voting patterns in the US. Taken together these research findings show that insecurity makes people more conservative, so by causing insecurity, religion and right wing politics effectively reinforce each other.
The two New Labour Politicians Charles Clarke and David Blunkett who addressed the conference added nothing to the development discussion other than to confirm their lack of understanding of humanist or secularist values. Charles Clarke listed the values that ‘we all share’ – And actually asserted that “these are Christian values”, which shows that he may be an experience politician, but he is obviously a novice when it comes to understanding non-belief and ethics and the importance of secularism as an essential part of a progressive left/liberal political ideology. Avoiding sectarianism does not seem to figure on their political agenda.
Clarke listed ‘the rule of law’, ‘Democracy, ‘Free Expression’, ‘Respect’ and equality for women’ - from which ‘only the extremists dissent’. But he was not asked to justify this patently untrue statement, every item of which is regularly and thoroughly trashed by religionists at home and abroad. Nor was he asked to justify them relative to atheists, secularists and other non-believers, women and gays who suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result of religious attitudes. And further, both asserted support for ‘faith schools’ because they claim to assert these values. Why, if we all share the same values should the religions need to demand their own schools? What is their purpose if not to indoctrinate children before an age at which they can understand the import of superstitious beliefs and bias the teaching in favour of their religions and their own prejudices and selective values?
It was clear that on religious schools, faith welfare, limits on freedom of expression and the ‘incitement bill’, New Labour’s policies are as reactionary and entrenched as ever. And Kennen Malik pointed to the mistaken policy of political ‘collusion’ with self appointed religious leaders, that has resulted in the disappearance of ”a once strong seculartradition” of Islam, in favour of the more religious views. This association of the political with the religious and the fundamental, has he said, reinforced Islam as more religious and less diverse.
And it was left to Kenan Malik to assert the necessity of free speech in a multi-cultural society. If we are to resolve honestly the problems that arise, without the resentment that comes from censorship, we have to be open to all shades of opinion without suppression. (And for myself this openness and respect for atheist and secularist opinion, is as necessary within the humanist movement as in the rest of society).
Nothing of course was said by anyone of the limitations on free speech by the selectivity of the publishing industry, press, radio and television.
Constitutional expert Professor Robert Hazell gave a succinct factual outline of the basic constitutional issues of church and state, Queen, Parliament & Lords, and the Church of England, and suggested that it is so intertwined that to disentangle some of the issues would be enormously difficult and time consuming. Nothing new there then.
The simple but essential difference between politics based on religious attitudes, and that based on secular humanism is that while the former is prescriptive, coercive and authoritarian, the latter is liberal, permissive and progressive.
We hear a lot about establishing democracy these days as the great leap forward to peaceful coexistence, but without secularism – freedom of religion, freedom from religion within a secular state that is neutral on matters of faith and gives no privileges of subsidies to religion –democracy is inadequate by itself, for good government,
Sue Mayer 2006
[1] (www.workshop3.freeuk.com/A_Humanist_Political_AgendaQ.htm)
[2] US TODAY - www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
[3] Explaining the Paradox www.workshop3.freeuk.com/Explaining_the_Paradox.htm
[4] The Positive Values of Secular Humanism – www.c.s.e.freeuk.com/Values.htm