Three stories penetrate the work-ridden last few days.
Yesterday Trevor Kavanagh, associate editor and former political editor of the Sun had the nerve to accuse the Metropolitan Police of wasting time and resources on their investigation of criminality at the heart of News International. He described police tactics as treating suspected journalists like “members of an organised crime gang”. He objected to dawn raids and intrusive searches of journalists’ homes.
Forgive my naïveté, but why does he think the police are doing this at all? Would he or his newspaper have had any patience with police ignoring criminality on an industrial scale in some other area of society? Did he consider the handling of the MPs’ expenses scandal as a waste of time and money – a gross overreaction? Does he really think that investigations into corruption and criminality at the Sun is ‘disproportionate’?
I usually find Trevor Kavanagh interesting, but this has left me staggered. Is he so out of touch that he still doesn’t get the public outrage at this enormous corruption? The irony of his choice of words is that the need for expensive and thorough police investigation arises directly from crime that looks distinctly ‘organised’. Or is it just that it is OK for ordinary mortals to have their lives intruded upon, shredded and dumped – their reputations rubbished and their families disturbed – but somehow wrong for journalists to suffer the same treatment? I am boggled.
Richard Dawkins is at it again – although Giles Fraser rattled him on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. As Dawkins mocked respondents to his poll who couldn’t name the first gospel, Fraser embarrassed him by exposing his inability to remember the full title of Darwin’s Origin of Species. His latest evangelistic campaign is just silly. In danger of confusing atheism with secularism (they are not the same), he perpetuates the pretence that he occupies neutral space whereas religious people are somewhere up the loaded loony scale. What makes him think that his world view is to be privileged above all others is still unclear. Anyway, his survey proves little – and certainly not what he thinks it proves.
Baroness Warsi has complained to the Pope about rampant and aggressive secularism that is marginalising religion in general and Christianity in particular in Britain today. Not having had time today to read all the reports of this, I remain unclear why she needs to tell the Pope what he already thinks. But, the question is really whether or not she is right. I just hope she doesn’t slip into the language of ‘persecution’.
The most interesting two responses I have seen to Dawkins and Warsi are by Giles Fraser and Julian Baggini. Rational atheist argument is fine and secularist campaigning acceptable. But, where does the mindless aggression come from? Why the irrational evangelism that doesn’t even pretend to be tolerant of any world view that differs from it’s own fundamentalism?
February 15, 2012 at 6:54 am
The problem really arose when the values of religious people became to be more at odds with mainstream society than they had been before. Until society got serious about the equality of women and lgbt people the big dilemma religious people have never arose: what does it mean to believe something if I cannot live according to my beliefs?
And the standard answer that you can live according to your own beliefs but you cannot impose them on others is really really difficult when living according to my beliefs means, precisely, not accepting what others do and being very much at odds with the secular society of which I, too, am a member and when it occasionally demands a genuine compromise from me – like it does from the ‘B&B’ owners.
In some respects it was easier in the 17th century – whether you believed in Transsubstantiation or not, you could pretend to forget that your neighbour believed the opposite and you could discover that it was possible to live in harmony with him although he was obviously wrong.
It’s harder when the hot button issues aren’t matters of theology but of practical ways of living in society.
I think those of us not at the extremes of these debates have to try harder to arrive at or communicate a theology that helps religious people to overcome this problem.
Because it IS largely our problem. Atheists would be much less up in arms if we stopped imposing our values (that not even most Christians share) on society in the name of our religious freedom.
February 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Nick, I’m pleased that you don’t conclude Baroness Warsi is right. “Militant secularism” is obviously a meaningless term, and it’s laughable to complain that religion’s marginalised in a country with an established church, bishops in the Lords and compulsory daily worship in schools.
It would also help if she took the time to understand what secularism actually is, as judging by her comments, she doesn’t seem to have much of an idea.
February 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I’m never sure whether tiresome intrusions from cynical atheists are welcome on a blog which is, I am sure, properly aimed at the faithful, so now may be the time to quit. I think Erica has it absolutely right, and I would feel much less antagonistic towards religion if it were her voice – and not that of the Odones, Atkins and Widdecombes of this world – that were heard more often.
However, your piece did give me one pause to think, Nick. You asked what is the point of Baroness Warsi visiting the Pope to tell him what he already thinks. And I wondered what would be the poiint of visiting the Pope and telling him something which which he disagrees. Would it not have exactly the same effect?
February 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Arthur, you are not intruding and atheists are welcome in here. I don’t write for the faithful, but want to put out there stuff that can be developed, questioned, rejected or commented on. I find Dawkins and the sloppy new atheists very tiresome simply because they add nothing to genuine debate and mutual learning. Atheists who comment here and elsewhere I find frequently instructive, challenging and helpful. But I also think it is better to be blunt than bland… on the grounds that I can take it as well as give it.
February 15, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Nick, 3 short points .
The only part of Trevor Kavanagher’s complaint I have some sympathy with- which may be where he gets the ” organised crime” analogy, is that whilst the ” high- ups” attended police stations by appointment ( with their lawyers) the journalists had dawn raids by multiple officers who turned over their houses and distressed their families. I wonder if anything material was found and if not whether such overkill was ever proportionate.
If there was disparity, I would find that unpalatable.
On a lighter note I think Giles Fraser did entertainingly well.
Did you note that the only person promised paradise by Jesus ( the thief on the cross) would have failed Dawkins ” faith test.”. Not an impressive example of ” scientific rationalism”!
I am grateful to Cranmer today for the information that the self important, and BBC respected National Secular Society has the same membership (7k) as the Sausage Appreciation Society. My own contribution to putting them in proportion, is to remark that there are Churches in the USA that could house them, and the joint home crowd of Plymouth Argyle and MK Dons.
February 16, 2012 at 9:13 am
[...] with atheism when they’re definitely not the same thing, as Nick Baines pointed out in his reflections on this [...]
February 16, 2012 at 9:48 am
Thanks for pointing me to the Baggini article which I hadn’t read. It’s inspired me to write my own post about this whole debate of religion’s place in society – extra things to consider are our history in Britain and our culture:
http://vahva.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/when-atheism-gets-confused-with-secularism-and-christians-confuse-challenge-with-persecution/
September 15, 2012 at 10:51 pm
[...] with atheism when they’re definitely not the same thing, as Nick Baines pointed out in his reflections on this [...]