Religion and Sociology in Discussion

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 25 July 2012 14:18:36

The Religion and Society Faith Debates are up on the web and the one last night was Tony Blair in discussion with Archbishop Rowan Williams and Charles Moore (former editor of the Telegraph). Watching the video this morning was fascinating. Firstly, it was interesting listening to Prof. Linda Woodhead  talk about the way people do have an interest in religion and society and discussing these things. She is one of the worlds most eminent academics in the area of the Sociology of Religion and has been a key figure in promoting this area of theory. One of the things she has been key in promoting is accessibility and the role of the public square as a place where good academic work and "ordinary" society come into dialogue. If people are looking for an example of good practice in this area this certainly one. The content on the website linked to at the beginning is also useful in providing clips which might be used in teaching and discussion. The first point Rowan makes is that whilst people may not be able to have a language to articulate it, certainly not one theologians would find appropriate, they do know what churches are for. Churches do have an important aid and support role in contemporary societies. Blair goes on to argue that we need a space for articulating the issues of the day on religious grounds, but within a democracy religious people need to know we are in a pluralistic society and we all work by due process. He talks about the "right relationship" between faith and democracy and the need for democracy to be supreme over religion in the public sphere. When asked about the discussions about rights and whether the law should be secular Williams makes the point that in the complexity Christians should not be too quick to take the victim posture. Moving on, going back to Blair's earlier point, he goes on to say that religious voices have a right to be heard but not a right to take the view they should always be seen as right. They were then asked about the place of faith schools. Blair separates these from cases where people think their religion should allow them to act or not act in a certain way. He says the human rights debate is important because of where there are an obvious clash of rights. The Archbishop moves it on to talk about the way the state and church work in partnership. He talks about the way accountability works and how judicial procedure is set out in a way which sometimes allows personal opt out but also equal access to all. There was a question asked about fundamentalism and truth claims which was put in a way which was framed around how language was used about Islam. In his answer Blair made two interesting points. Firstly, he described his personal faith - which is based around a truth claim. More interestingly he said Christianity was at one point used to  justify violence but not now - this shows how he has no understanding of how he and more explicitly Bush misused Christianity in justifying war. He then goes on to talk about understanding the other and why it is important to teach children about the nature of religion. He made a really good point about not losing sight of the humanity of people with a different view. Rowan took this on to discuss the problems in trying to engage people who don't get the importance of inter-faith dialogue and respecting "the other". He makes the point whilst inter-faith talks normally involve those who are interested and more respectful those people go back and enter discussion with those who wouldn't go near these discussions with a barge pole and so whilst change can be very slow it can occur. He makes the point we need to look at each others text books to see what they are saying about "the other" before emphasizing we don't need to think of ourselves as needing to win God's arguments for him. It then moved on to a question time from the audience. The first question came from a humanist, the second came from Eileen Barker (from the LSE who was best known as author of Making of a Moonie) and the third from a Salvation Army spokesman. Blair began by taking on board the Salvation Army's question on gambling and super casinos. He disagreed with the Salvation Army's opposition but respected their right to give. He then took up Barker's question about if there should be any groups they shouldn't dialogue with and he waffled a bit on this, not taking up the question about those groups who make be dangerous. With reference to the Humanist's question he pointed out that reasonable people can disagree....but the quality of the discourse is important. Williams made the point there are different types of engagement and so in relation to Barker's questions you may not want to give legitimacy to some groups. He distinguished between public and private engagement. He linked the other two questions together explaining that he thinks the idea of using a super casino to regenerate an area is bizarre but he has to ensure that he puts forward a good rational argument. The individuals view may be from a faith perspective, but the discussion needs to be one which can engage beyond that point in a more pragmatic way. Moore goes on to make the point that religions have discussed alot of issues before and their arguments will inform the discussions - that needs to be acknowledged. He uses the design of space around Westminster as an example of how understanding religious history can help you understand where you are now. The next set of questions came - firstly from a female rabbi about women clergy, the next from an English teacher in London who was enquiring about the rights and wrongs of King James bibles being given out - was it a politicised gesture and the final from a Psychology student from Brunell. Charles Moore answered first and focused on the King James question and explained why he thought it was important. Williams started with women clergy and said the arguments have pretty much been had but what is new is that the bishops have had to learn how difficult it is for women to hear an all male body making pronouncements. He says the church is now in a position where people expect a collaborative discussion takes place. He was clearly wrong footed by the Watch reaction to the bishops proposals. He then moved on to the King James question and talked about the need to help people engage in an educating way if you give them a heavy and unfamiliar text. The implication in his answer was that the bibles had been given as an iconic text but they were not put there in the way they should have been - as an educational tool. Looking at the resurrection he talked about how to engage with it. Blair started with the women clergy question saying there wasn't much new - it was now about where people stood on it. In terms of the bible, he said it was good that people were given bibles but they weren't intended to convert. He then referred to the resurrection and how it was an essential part of the Christian faith, but it was a matter of faith. In this section he talked about how he had debated this with his militant atheist father, which was interesting. The next questions came from a cardinal who referred to militant secularism and militant relativism. The next one came from an  Evangelical Alliance policy officer who asked if secular neutrality was a myth. The final was from somebody who described them-self as "an ordinary citizen" who asked if there was a public and private morality and how that goes into society. Rowan said there shouldn't be a difference between private and public morality, but in different contexts different arguments have to be given. He talked about the need for people to be engaging in theological anthropology and the importance of this in a number of contemporary debates. Blair looked at it from the point of view of a policy maker. He made the point people without religion and anti-religion are just as, and sometimes more moral than the Christians. However, he went on to say people of faith have an important point to make about issues being based on more than utilitarian arguments. He said there are 3 important things for people of faith to do in the UK and other western documents. 1. To speak out and say what we think without being embarrassed. 2. People need to hear the good stuff going on that people of faith are doing stuff. 3. When talking about faith we need to reach out to people who are of different faiths to our own. Charles Moore pointed out the Catholic Church has said that error has no right, but that we are all erroneous people and so we all deserve rights. He said that he agreed with the EA spokesman that there was no neutrality anymore and he said the answer to this was the CofE being the established church. He said that whilst not giving people privilege it should be used because its there. How representative these academics, journalists and members of faith based organisations are of wider society is questionable. It raises a question about what we mean by "the public square" and who actually has access to the discussions between academia and society. The "ordinary people" there appeared to be students and teachers. The question is then raised about how are non-university educated, middle class voices heard within these discussions or are they excluded from the public square? Was the "ordinary citizen" that voice? I'm not sure....we didn't know enough about her....but I would put money on her being the exception in that audience. We need to think about how access to the public square is given. In terms of the content of what was said it was a carefully worded conversation which sought to engage the issues without talking about some of the issues - specifically the "gay marriage" question. Interestingly, that was left up to David Cameron who hosted a meeting for "high level" LGBT people yesterday and gave a speech which had at its heart exactly what the Religion and Society talk was on about. Diva have given a transcript of what was said and it is interesting. Not only is it about the only time I have consciously agreed with Cameron it also shows why I believe the points Williams, Blair and to a lesser extent Moore were correct. Cameron is talking about the diversity of views within the Church on the subject, and then engaging with the issue and the concerns of the church in a sensitive but rational way to a LGBT audience explaining that the Tory Party had to learn not to lock people out, and the Church shouldn't be locking people out either.