Though Cowards Flinch

Phillip Blond said on his twitter feed last night (re Ann Widdecombe’s programme Does Christianity Have a Future?):

Great programme but no idea why ann didn’t do the global figures – more christians than ever before in raw numbers and world percentages

The answer to this is that such figures would not perhaps fit her narrative.

In answer to the question “is the growth of secularism a worry”, put to the former British Conservative Party politician by Alyssa McDonald for the New Statesman, Ann replied:

Secularism has no central goal, it’s just promoting endless relativism. That’s why there is a huge moral drift in the country. Everybody is infallible except the Pope, if you like. Crazy.

Strictly speaking, the UK does not have secularism*, or more specifically laicism, since the head of state is also the head of the church, but certainly the state does not assume the role of religious imposer and in this regard Britain may be considered soft secular.

Amazingly however, some assume that the state, in not imposing one religious discourse to those it governs, has become morally neutral or relative, and one consequence of this is moral decay or drift.

In 2007 Widdecombe said:

“Most of our social ills are down to loss of authority; in schools, by the police, in the home, in organised religion.

“There is a slow descent into anarchy. We are in moral anarchy. In some estates it is already there. To change things, you must start to restore authority to the police.”

In some part, Widdecombe believes that today’s moral anarchy is to do with loss of authority in organised religion.

In 2010, she put it bluntly:

if today we still tried to follow the Ten Commandments we would be a better society

There is no doubt about it, for Widdecombe moral decay in our society is down to the fact that religion is less important to people.

So to return to Blond’s question “why … didn’t [Ann] do the global figures”? Perhaps because if she had noted a global growth in religiosity, particularly with the Christian religion, then given her logic of these matters, we could expect to be on some sort of road to moral harmony soon.

*Ms Widdecombe knows Britain is not secular, indeed she once said “Britain is “a Christian country. There is one established church here. The law does follow that.” But does she know what secular means?

An hour ago, the press association ran a piece entitled “Ed Miliband: I don’t believe in God”. This relates to an interview with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 Live, where the question was raised, and the answer carefully noted how important it is to be tolerant of people whatever their view.

This will not stop the insults unfortunately. Nor will it help matters much that Miliband is the son of a Marxist heathen, unmarried, and the brother of an atheist who at least did his best by sending his child to a Roman Catholic school.

None of these things matter of course; and as Miliband said in his interview, his views should be a private matter, much like the atheism of our deputy Prime Minister.

But remember it is not just believers who have over-fetishised God in politics. Few may remember two years ago, when David Miliband was thought to be brewing a leadership bid, the philosopher and atheist A.C. Grayling making a plea in the Guardian for an atheist Prime Minister.

It levelled many ridiculous claims that should divide a believing PM from a non-believing one; atheists will not receive messages from beyond if going to war; they will be sceptical about giving special privileges to religious organisations; sectarianism through faith schools will be a thing of the past; neutrality between religious pressure groups will be the order of the day; and they’ll take more “down-to-earth” views.

Let’s throw this nonsense out of the water, just in case Grayling tries to write it again.

Of course, nobody can actually receive messages from beyond, but if we are dealing with stupid reasons to go to war here, suggesting this is the preserve of the religious is to forget the wars authored by such tyrants as Stalin and Mao.

This might evoke the redundant reaction given by the new atheists, usually that Communism is merely a demi-religion without supernatural Gods, and thus subject to the irrationality reserved by the religious (nb it also helps the “Ditchkins’” out in their mission to single religion out as only evil; secular reason as bringing only good).

Will an atheist be any more or less sceptical about giving privileges to religious organisation? The infection that says some religions are more evil than others strikes through even the most ardent atheist too. Christian schools have long been a feature in the UK educational system, yet Islamic schools still have the effect of discomfort for some people, whether that person is religious or not. This may be more political than theological, but then many attitudes on religion today are.

By no means am I saying that Ed Miliband will come to favour one religious institution over another, but what I will categorically suggest is that his atheism will not de facto ignore the level of favouritism or ill-feeling that is levelled at some religions, or even the level at which some secularists believe certain religions are far less compatible with secularism than others.

Furthermore, on the question of educational sectarianism, such institutions do not have a state sanction to be sectarian, but to open a school with a certain religious value system. I’ve little doubt that Ed, even as an atheist, will be happy, or even indifferent, to religious values being attached to schools. Sectarianism in schools, where it exists, is kept quiet, and is certainly not allowed as such – in fact admissions in most schools are still subject to anti-discrimination measures.

Moreover, this accusation, made by A. C. Grayling was made about David Miliband; who, as mentioned, did send his son to a Roman Catholic school.

On possible neutrality between faiths, Ed Miliband has already upset Israeli supporters by speaking at at a Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East reception. It is inevitable that a political position will eventually upset faiths when politics and faith have become so intertwined. It is quite clear, therefore, that an atheist is just as liable as a believer – a further element overlooked by Grayling.

And as for the point about Miliband being more level headed, this remains to be seen, but frankly the dividing line is not drawn between believer and non-believer, only in Grayling’s black and white mind.

I am not a lawyer and make no pretence at knowing much about the intricacies of the law, beyond their effect upon what it is the rest of us can and cannot do. Even on that score, I am generally guided by the books that I read, where those books are well-researched and backed up with case evidence.

Yet in regard to Peter’s attack upon the idea of banning incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality, I cannot help but feel that the objections are much ado about nothing. The law on sexual orientation will be added, as Peter mentioned, to that of religious hatred. Both sections will then have the following clause applied to them:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

I think it is fair to say that this clause pretty much covers freedom of speech. If I can ridicule Christianity or Islam, which this law declares that I have the right to do, then surely that is enough? If I can dislike religions and the beliefs and practices thereof, then what more is there to demand?

Granted, I’m not wild about legislation just for the sake of it.

I think that the law is already pretty clear; assault is a crime and murder is a crime, and so for arson, kidnapping and so forth. Incitement to commit a crime is in itself a crime. The law, as I understand it, already makes allowances for prosecuting those who, with their actions and words, attempt to incite others to commit the above crimes.

Yet insofar as the law on religious hatred is, and the law on sexual orientation will be, used to strengthen the ability to prosecute those who incite to crimes, then I support them.

I have other reasons for being ambivalent. In the media, on TV and elsewhere it seems that we are eternally locked into the quest for greater and greater sensationalism. The media must feel that it is screaming at the top of its lungs on some issue or another and amidst all this, rational discussion, which is itself one of the predicates of Liberalism, is drowned out.

Rather than have people screaming about how the government is thrusting homosexuality upon our children using the education system (as Conservative Sayeeda Warzi did at the last election), we might have people debating the issue. If a law on sexual orientation prevents people treating it as an inherent evil during debate in public forums, then isn’t that a good thing?

Such a thing, in my view, strengthens freedom of speech by allowing people to hear not just the sloganeering but the rational argument behind points of view. If one can only hear the sloganeering, then freedom of speech is just a nominal right in any case.

None of this is to support Tony Blair and the government’s general disrespect for the representative role of the House of Commons – as shown in the votes on the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. I’m simply making the point that freedom of speech is unlikely to suffer due to these laws.

Moreover, I think scaremongering on freedom of speech when it’s merely an outside possibility that it will suffer deadens the attention of many people to issues which are much more relevant to wider freedoms of expression – e.g. SOCPA 2005, to which the religious hatred bill was originally attached.