Religion Again: Current Controversies (August 2003)

When I was at school we had compulsory religious studies and although I didn't enjoy it, I remember thinking on an intellectual spectrum those kind of questions were at the top. The rest of my week I was occupied with French verbs, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, basic algebra etc. Only in RS were we referring to questions about the meaning of life. Later at university a friend once told another mutual friend she was fed up with studying because she was doing a crap subject - English. I didn't have strong feelings about this (English was my core subject), but she did. I just thought hmm that's an interesting idea. At the time I was sitting in on Buddhism lectures, which I found quite interesting. It wasn't so much theological as psychological, presenting the assembled students with concepts and principles that challenged their habitual perceptions. I have never felt inclined to adopt any religion, although I have read some religious-related texts in a comparative and non-doctrinal spirit. Apparently, I stored my friend's remark in an intellectual filing cabinet that I can now open, many years later. Much as I dislike religion - and have given my reasons elsewhere - I find the kind of questions it professes to answer very interesting.

I accept that religions sometimes have a useful cultural role, helping to create reasonably mature communities ie those where values like compassion and respect for others are encouraged. This seems to be a widely used criteria when assessing the role of religion in todays mixed up, multi-faith world. My objections to religion are not against their cultural role in that sense, but the philosophical assumptions they never open up, the intellectual conditioning resting on the primacy of belief over both personal enquiry and fact, and the way so called political correctness has cast a protective no-go shroud over their hallowed ideologies. Thou shalt not attack the Holy (respective) Words, O thou non-believer. And thus on the Fifth Day (or something like that), it was proclaimed Thou Shalt Not Incite Religious Hatred. How ironic that recent legislation was designed to protect Moslems from hatred (post 9/11), when recent legal interventions have been not against angry Westerners but Islamic extremists. And this is where it becomes not a genteel philosophical conversation but a social and political controversy - possibly dangerous. And while I acknowledge it is the danger and conflict that political correctness seeks to avoid, that does not mean the philosophical questions are buried under a mound of inflammatory no-go tradition. They aren't; they are as clear and bright as ever, existing beyond all dogma. What is the meaning of life, what happens when you die etc; these are valid questions and it is equally valid that people are entitled to make their own conclusions. What is not valid is when a group of people seek to impose their conclusions on everyone else. And as we all know, this religious attitude can be extremely dangerous when mixed with cultural history, politics, terrorism, and the power of military technologies. If Islam currently has a bad reputation it is because of the steady stream of stories concerning Mad Mullahs, racial tensions in segregated places like Bradford, and the fact that Islam does not have good, intelligent public speakers. What conversations they have are conducted mostly amongst themselves, and not as part of wider society in 2003. It's not a very healthy situation.

There are exceptions, but they are painfully few. I was quite pleased to find the writings of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a year or two ago. At last, someone who was talking openly in a modern and relevant way. I have never seen a Moslem person talk like this, apart from her: admitting the social problems and failings of contemporary Islam as a basis for progress and reform. Apart from her, I have never seen a Moslem engage in an intelligent, side by side criticism of Islam and the West: you're imperialist (yes, we are; the politicians are anyway) but hold on a minute we're not so great either are we? That we can also be racist. That Islam around the world is associated with violence, internal and otherwise. That Islam has double standards. That Asian families cover up their own secrets and lies. That Islam fails to condemn violence conducted in its own name. That Islam has to be recalimed from the fanatics. That Muslim women are opressed and denigrated. And - shock, horror - she questions Islamic leadership.

Now, after all that I need to emphasise the following so it doesn't appear as mere rant. Why do I like it? This is not about hatred or bigotry but my frustration with a) the situation and b) the way it is continually regarded. Consider the following:

1) This kind of dialogue is constructive. It acknowledges facts that are mostly ignored, hidden, or only whispered. And by acknowledging them, it implies that we can progress and move on to something better.

2) This kind of dialogue is honest, and on that basis I would be very happy to respond and acknowledge the ills and failings of Western society. In other words, you can have a reasoned conversation as two intelligent minds, in 2003. Let's talk.

3) This dialogue is humanistic, ie informed by all that civilisation has learnt from hundreds of years of conflict, war, and ignorance. Women shouldn't be opressed any more; we've gone beyond that. There is such a thing as human rights. We have no right to impose our ideology on the West when we are far from perfect...etc.

I like the fact that the UK is traditionally very tolerant of all kinds of diverse opinion and eccentricity. But where national security is concerned, it becomes rather worrying. So I'm glad to see that the authorities finally recognise this kind of situation has to be carefully watched. It seems quite obvious, if a group of people challenge and defy the existing political and legal structures in a very radical way, they should expect attention from the police. The inevitable fundamentalist protest at these interventions is a luxury characteristic of the tolerant UK for which we can be grateful, but which is also worrying. Giving fanatics the "oxygen of publicity" is dangerous. It makes no difference whether it's anarchists, communists, racist right-wingers or religionists and I have no doubt that is exactly how the authorities see it. A threat is a threat. Religionists don't recognise this and prefer to see the situation in their own terms, so you have a clash of agendas. Well I'm sorry people, but this is not an Islamic country - nor is it anarchist, Fascist or communist. So there's no point in rattling those dusty old koranic ideals in the UK face. Especially so when this bumbling little country seems to have finally woken up.

The debate about homosexuality in the church has recently been a high profile controversy; I saw a BBC programme where two vicars argued it out. One said love and compassion is the true basis and overriding concern for all subsequent interpretations of the bible; the other one said no, some things are wrong and cannot be condoned. I found it ridiculous to see grown men come out with their 'Jesus said this' and 'God's love says that' arguments. However what was interesting was the way it was being openly and publically debated. Much of Islam seems to be at the level of cultural advance Christianity was a few hundred years ago, when people were killed for daring to disbelieve or challenge church teachings. Which of course are questionable because they are relative and a matter of interpretation. Isn't this profoundly obvious, and obviously applicable to religion as a whole? And obvious, that it is intelligent and healthy to question, that this doesn't threaten a set of teachings but improves it?

OK here's a summary for my philosophical and critical rambling:

1) Religions are related to relevant and important philosophical questions and these questions can be philosophically considered, seperate from religion

2) This is seperate from the historical, political and cultural aspect of religion, from which current tensions derive

3) It's not healthy when issues are buried, ignored and denied

4) It is a valid and healthy process to examine these issues, on the basis of modern cultural learning

5) But I don't think this can be done from without; it has to come from within the religions themselves, which is why I like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

6) I get frustrated with the way these issues are evaded, ignored etc. Hopefully where I do rant, the reasoning underneath it still comes through. And otherwise, that my reasoning is very clear.