God and Politics website. 23 April 2014
It’s arrogant secularists rather than David Cameron who are fostering division – God and Politics
8 thoughts on “It’s arrogant secularists rather than David Cameron who are fostering division – God and Politics”
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The negative comments are not limited to church matters. I think it is linked to the growth of Twitter. I tend not to read them just because they are too voluminous. Looking at Titus Online, I get the impression that news stories about Christianity are reported. Of course the US has no established church for them to focus on. I thought there was much more religious news coverage in the US. I rarely get beyond http://www.christianitytoday.com/ , http://www.crosswalk.com/ and the rest of the Salem web network. I will admit that Britain specialises in eccentrics but there or loud mouthed idiots the world over in search of a target.
I think that militant secularism should be limited to such institutions as the National Secular Society and The British Humanist Association and the old and new atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hutchins. Their militancy is shown by diatribes describing the misery that religion is alleged to bring and campaigns against bishops in the House of Lords and prayers at council meetings. The use of the term militant may point to the tactics of militant tendency in the labour party
Looking at Newswatch, a don’t think the press is anti-church. Andrew Brown, Guardian, seems to be the most prolific commentator. His objections seem to centre on the churches treatment of homosexuals and women. He is not anti church but anti church gone wrong. Similarly articles from the Independent and Guardian. The Telegraph is probably more pro Christian society but this does not get in the way of a good story.
Atheism sees itself as enlightenment from the the superstitions of a bygone age. I think it has become militant when it sees religion as part of the apparatus of oppression. From Marx onwards religion has been seen as the opiate of the people. In the existentialists conventional religion is a barrier to authenticity. The Church has been condemned for idealising self sacrifice in WW1. I suppose it is militant when it is fighting religion rather than constructing a secular alternative e.g. non-religious marriage and funeral services.
The CofE is is of course criticised from all angles. Not only does it maintain superstition per atheists but it is narrow minded per liberals, lost the gospel per evangelicals, only half reformed, patriarchal, the hand maid of the state …
Thank you so much, Dave, for your perspective and clarity. To be clear myself, the ‘resentnik tone and narcissistic wounding’ that I had in mind are usually only in the comments, and not in the articles themselves. Opinion pieces on churches are rare in American journalism. I cannot think of an American voice like Andrew Brown’s. And here, the rage is vented at blocs of evangelical voters rather than their churches, although the Roman Catholic Church is a special case. As annoying as it must be to be continually criticised, it is probably better than fading from all accountability in the public square.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularism.org.uk%2Fhistory.html&ei=NWZdU4veObLA7AaOuIG4CQ&usg=AFQjCNH36KlJu_ExclqoH4Brt8w6jYPhug
There is an explanation of the history of British secularism , here Bowman Your question has caused me to ask why do we call anything which is not evangelical Militant? would you call the evangelical Christians militant? is being Militant compatible with Christainity and the creation of an environment which creates Peace both inner Peace and environmental Peace
I hope, Angela, that you had a happy Easter. Thank you for the link to secularist ideas. They are rather C19– the whole movement seems to be– and that insect-in-amber quality is what puzzles me about it.
We also have such groups here, just as we have monarchist groups and neo-Confederate groups, but none have much of a constituency. Anti-religious hate speech is seen as disgusting bad behavior like stalking celebrities or posting revenge porn on the internet. Our media do not editorially engage the rationale for it; apart from one comedian, they mostly ignore it. Why the difference?
My guess is that the old Victorian battle against “religious privilege” has been superseded among civil libertarians in North America by twin beliefs of our own time– commitment to religious pluralism demands respect for the belief of believers, and one cannot live ethically in a multi-ethnic nation without respect for religious pluralism. That view is most robust in Canada, owing to some very deep thinking on a national identity that includes a priori the aboriginal First Nations and French-speaking Quebec, and I think the level of civility in religious matters is highest there. In the United States, the primordial pluralism was not as deep, but the Constitution’s First Amendment supported it as it was– “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” * The ideal has evolved; today it is beginning to suggest acceptance of Native American values and Mormon polygamy once deemed un-American. My guess, then, is that the effective disinfectant against anti-religious hate speech is recognition of real pluralism that gives each citizen a stake in the full freedom of religious expression of all others.
If that is correct, then European states experience more anti-religious hate speech (not just anti-Christian, but anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic) because pluralistic expressions of national identity have been less plausible to their ordinary citizens. The secularists who lobby Brussels so, well, ‘militantly’ are using the equality meme to, as they see it, carve out some kind of national cultural identity that includes the godless. The hate speech is immoral, and that use of the equality meme is dumb, but the problem they mean to solve might still be real (eg in Bavaria).
Do the articles about secularism that we see in Newswatch prove me wrong? Britain has a long experience of effective religious freedom, and the Church of England is among the most pluralistic churches in the world, yet secularism has been a perennial topic for several years now. There are bishops in the Lords, but is that enough to explain it? After all, they could not stop the Marriage Act, and other faiths are also represented there. And although the American government accepts religious contributions in lieu of taxes, and our politicians do god, we only have hilarious stand-up from Bill Maher about this where you have an endless debate. Isn’t Britain’s ample recognition of pluralism enough to enable people to move on? I seem to missing something.
I thank Angela for her comment, and welcome any others that might shed light on this. This seems to be the key to other matters.
______________
* As I’ve noted in the past, this Federal formulation allowed the states to retain established churches if they wished, so long as there were no limits on the exercise of alternate religions. And from the beginning (eg Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom) non-belief was recognized as a de facto religion with the same rights. In that legal context, state churches more or less negotiated their several disestablishments over a generation. How and how much that “separation of church and state” (Justice Brandeis, C20) ultimately mattered is still debated.
This may be compared to the history of a church building. It is constructed as a place of worship. It is also used for public meetings… and concerts. Eventually services are cancelled. You are left with a concert all with religious architecture. The historical foundation is not enough, we need to look at the current ethos.
Dave
Speaking of the ethos, Dave, are the ubiquitous haters of the Church of England in the threads of Newswatch articles ‘militant secularists,’ and if so, why are they militant? I am seeking, not a plausible rationale for hate speech, but a dry historical explanation for a mass rage and its social force in English society.
The resentnik tone and narcissistic wounding in those comments sound most like what one would hear at a Virginia gun show from ‘gunnies’ with Confederate flags who are certain that President Obama will send black UN helicopters full of blue-helmeted soldiers from Area 51 to take all their guns away and make them accept subsidised health insurance. But I cannot test that complex analogy from here.
Where did the militant secularists in England come from? Are they psychologically unbalanced people holding a grudge against a vicar somewhere? Are they unbelieving descendants of non-conformists for whom disdain for the Church of England is an inherited way of life? Are they a remnant of the ‘Imagine’ wing of Labour? Do they tend to have a vision for England broader than disestablishment?
Your own thoughts would be most helpful, of course, but reference to the right historical book might also suffice. Thank you, Dave, for any attention that you can give this.
I think it is entirely right and justified, that David Cameron makes clear the foundations from which this country works. Of course it needs clarification. We may be a Christian country but by definition we all fail on occasion to be “the best Christian we can be” being a Christian means we are faced several times a day everyday with choices of circumstance which requires us to ask the question “what would Jesus do”? and is it possible or can I emulate it can I stay true to the roots . If I were another religion it would all be mapped out for me I would not make a choice whether I prayed five times a day or ate Kosher food or whether I could earn my way to Universal Peace through good deeds. None of my good deeds are worth anything in Christianity because Jesus loves and saves the sinner. Everything is back to front and upside down with the main commandment being “love one another as I have loved you” This was echoed and rang my bell when in the current debate over our young people are going to Syria to fight as the representative in the Media informed us that in the Koran it says “look after your mother as she has looked after you” a good sentiment but in a world where Mothers neglect, sell, and abuse children it is one I would find hard to subscribe to. It is far easier to take the lessons of Jesus and try to implement them. That is quite an important point because the fact is where humans let us down we do have a book of guidance and inspired timeless book of guidance and it has worked for many for centuries. Other faiths also have a book of guidance for life but to be in or out ostracised with no way back if you deviate leads to hopelessness. However I am not suggesting that Christianity in its human representation does not sometimes lead to hopelessness, for to be set up for failure and public humiliation is no easy path, and if as a human being you do not cope with that well it is also isolating. The thing about religion , which ever religion you follow the emphasis is on “family” always “family” and we are living in a world where the family unit with a blood line from beginning to end is actually the minority. So that is why the church is struggling it is not meeting the needs of a multicultural mixed race and broken families. The church is now failing to meet the needs of the marginalized. It will find its place for a while through foodnbanks as a way of connecting to normal people who do there best against the odds bringing a new meaning to God loves a tryer .It will pick up on the latest social problems and bridge the gap BUT will it create a Church where the isolated and marginalized lonely and without family support person can attend??