We are coming to know that new Lib Dem member Laurence Boyce has a pull-no-punches style of writing, but I think his latest opinion piece on Lib Dem Voice is a very regrettable attack on religion.
As it happens I don’t think I agree with a single one of the views that he attributes to Cardinal O’Brien - even the more widespread ones such as opposing abortion, let alone some of the more exotic ones. And I am not a Catholic.
So I don’t at all seek to defend those views - but what I find very regrettable is the attack on religion which his comments have prompted Laurence to launch.
It is very easy to say that religious people should not speak on matters which are part of public debate, but Christianity - and all other faith systems that spring readily to mind - are in fact precisely concerned with right and wrong. To argue that religious people should say nothing about moral matters of public interest, which abortion clearly is, is really to argue that religious people should not think or say anything at all. So although I don’t think this was Laurence’s intention, arguing that faith groups should keep silent on moral questions, is effectively arguing that they should not do anything.
Surely freedom of belief (whether religious, political, or anything else) is something I hope we all fundamentally believe in - especially Liberal Democrats.
Laurence claims that by saying that supporting abortion is incompatible with Catholicism to the point of denying communion, the Cardinal is “subverting the democratic process”. I can think of lots of actions which do come under the heading of subverting the democratic process, but saying that his views, and those of the church in which is a leading member, are incompatible with a particular moral action, does not seem to me to be one of them. If membership of the Catholic church were a required pre-requisite for membership of a Parliament, denying membership would indeed be subverting the democratic process. This is however not the case.
Cardinal O’Brien was, as Laurence says, never elected - but then he holds no position of power - he isn’t making laws, for example - and both Catholics and non-Catholics will decide whether they want to agree with or accept his views or not.
I am afraid that the article as a whole reflects a widespread attitude determined to prevent religious people from expressing their sincerely-held views.
Laurence makes a familiar argument that religious views should play no part in public debate, which should be based only on “science”. If “science” on its own tells you the answers to moral or ethical questions, then I obviously wasn’t paying enough attention in my GCSE chemistry lessons! Laurence allows that “modern ethical insights” could play a part in making such a decision, but insists on excluding some other people’s “ethical insights”. Perhaps someone else might think that whatever modern ethical insights are favoured by Laurence, are “dubious”, just as he describes others’. The process we have for resolving this is surely debate and a democratically-elected government, rather than denying people the right to state their views.
One of the few lines of Laurence’s piece that I agreed with was that Britain could probably do with an explicitly secular political party (although I do not think that the party he joined three weeks ago is going to follow his suggestion of becoming that party). But does the same right - freedom of speech and belief - to put forward views not apply to people of different beliefs, including religious ones?
No-one (that I know) is arguing that the religious beliefs of one group of people (on abortion, homosexuality, or anything else, say) rather than democracy, should dictate public policy - but it seems very intolerant of a liberal not to allow people to contribute their beliefs to that debate.
None of this is to say that I agree with the views attributed to Cardinal O’Brien - and some of his language seems to be even more colourful than Laurence’s! If accurate, I think his reported comments about gay adoption and sex education were particularly regrettable.
But some do seem to be quite happy to attack people of faith, and even deny that they are doing it - I juxtapose two sentences from Laurence’s article:
“I am not indulging in”¦bashing religion”
“In fact so far as I can see, the good Cardinal really only represents one person (or is it three?) - God, a somewhat elusive character who rarely puts in a public appearance”
I don’t agree with Cardinal O’Brien’s views, but if he believes them then I think he was entitled to say them, and I think Laurence’s attack on the right of a religious viewpoint to contribute to debate in a democracy - and effectively therefore to exist - is very unfortunate.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:27
Quite!
June 6th, 2007 at 1:48
You are as sound as ever. All faith groups have not only the right but the obligation to speak up when they believe society is acting in a way that is immoral, whether it is about genocide in Nazi Germany or elsewhere, abortion here (or elsewhere), or about poverty, as in Latin America. Their supporters can then decide whether to agree, whether to leave the church, or whether to do what most Catholics clearly do about church teaching on contraception, and ignore it.
If they try to overthrow democratically elected government, that is different. But if they do not, then we may not like what they say, but should celebrate their right to say it.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:21
Hi Jeremy. Thanks for this considered response. I’ll just take you up on a few points.
Surely freedom of belief (whether religious, political, or anything else) is something I hope we all fundamentally believe in – especially Liberal Democrats.
OK, I’m going to really shock you now. I don’t actually accept the concept of freedom of belief. However, that is a statement which requires considerable qualification and explanation, so please don’t quote it out of context! For an idea of where I’m coming from, I’m afraid I’m going to have to refer you to chapter two of The End of Faith by Sam Harris.
I can think of lots of actions which do come under the heading of subverting the democratic process, but saying that his views, and those of the church in which is a leading member, are incompatible with a particular moral action, does not seem to me to be one of them.
Well I wasn’t the only one to feel uneasy. Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis said: “It is not right that we would be seen to be put under pressure, or indeed some members threatened, by a religious leader on what is a very sensitive issue.â€
If “science†on its own tells you the answers to moral or ethical questions, then I obviously wasn’t paying enough attention in my GCSE chemistry lessons!
Actually, I think that science is increasingly going to inform ethics and morality. I refer the honourable gentleman to the book I mentioned some moments ago. Chapter six this time.
Laurence allows that “modern ethical insights†could play a part in making such a decision, but insists on excluding some other people’s “ethical insightsâ€.
Yes, I exclude ethical insights which are based upon some ancient and barbaric sacred text. Whatever is true in the present, must be discoverable in the present.
The process we have for resolving this is surely debate and a democratically-elected government, rather than denying people the right to state their views.
I’m not denying the Cardinal the right to state his views. I just reserve the right to sock him over the head every time he does so!
One of the few lines of Laurence’s piece that I agreed with was that Britain could probably do with an explicitly secular political party (although I do not think that the party he joined three weeks ago is going to follow his suggestion of becoming that party).
Well I didn’t join the wrong party. I’ve been voting Lib Dem for ages on a range of issues.
No-one (that I know) is arguing that the religious beliefs of one group of people (on abortion, homosexuality, or anything else, say) rather than democracy, should dictate public policy.
You obviously missed this poll then.
I juxtapose two sentences from Laurence’s article.
And then you misquote me! I said that “I am not above indulging in [bashing religion].†In fact I do it all the time, which is why I’m probably not the best person to make the case for a secular Britain. But I don’t hear anyone else making the argument coherently in the political arena, and that is a problem. A major problem.
So Jeremy, do you still go to church?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:09
Jeremy, you seem to have writen the post I was going to. However I was to mention that it seems we don’t mind people joining/taking advise from presure groups (Greenpeace) or think tanks (Adam Smith), but the idea that any religion group making statements is completly different and against the seperation of Church and State.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:08
I saw nothing in the original article to suggest religious people should not be allowed to speak.
It was disagreeing with a particular religious person. OK.
It was suggesting that withholding communion - using the tools of religious influence over politicians - is subversive of the political process. Hmm, yes, I suppose it is, mildly.
But why is it that this question always to generate more heat than light? I think the phrase ‘removing religion from the public square’ seems to be culprit, by its ambiguity. Does it mean shutting some people up, or does it just mean ignoring them? Does it refer to all religious people, or only the invokation of religious authority in support of a position? I take the charitable view that it refers to the latter answer in both cases, but I can see why people might fear the former answers.
June 6th, 2007 at 13:54
Laurence - thanks for your response. I respect the fact that you have a properly thought-through position on religion generally and its desirable role in relation to public debate - though clearly I disagree with it.
I stand corrected that some people do desire the imposition of (for example) Sharia law - though I think you would accept that that was not what I was arguing for, and is not entailed by arguing for religious points of view to be able to contribute their view in the manner that Cardinal O’Brien did.
June 6th, 2007 at 20:11
Cardinal O’Brien abused his position by threatening Catholic politicians whom he judged to have violated Catholic teachings with ex-communication. This was far more than expressing a viewpoint; it was a blatent attempt to impose Catholic creed on members of the legislature in violation of the separation of church and state.
The Cardinal was attempting to assert that no true Catholic could support pro-choice abortion law, hoping to stir up opposition amongst Catholics to politicians who supported such a law.
In the realm of reality, many Catholic politicians recognised that re-criminalising abortion would result in an explosion of back street abortions rather than ending the practise. The choice was therefore not, as the Cardinal’s shrill threats suggested, between supporting abortion or not, but between legal or illegal abortions.
Religion is a form of ideology; 20th C showed us that govt and ideology were best kept apart.
June 7th, 2007 at 14:19
Jeremy
Thanks for that article. I’ve put you on my “review then blogroll” list.
Cheers. Matt