The bishop and reality
Poor bishop. He may have just meant something like ‘Take the Taliban seriously,’ but he said more than that.
There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really. The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
Yes but…pretty much everything they do that is relevant to this discussion is bad. They probably manage to sleep and scratch itches in ways that are not bad, but their public activities are bad. They do bad things. They treat people badly. Life under them is harsh and deprived and subject to violence.
And they cannot and should not be admired for their conviction to their faith, because their faith is narrow and cruel and misogynist, and because it motivates them to treat people like so much dust for a god to sweep. They cannot and should not be admired for their loyalty to each other because that is simply the obverse of their muderous hatred of everyone else. It’s slightly bizarre to see a bishop failing to understand this – it seems so obvious and elementary and essential to understand.
“To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.” Bishop Venner said that everyone in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, would have to be included in discussions to find a solution to the conflict. “Afghanistan is going we hope in the end to find a way to live together with justice and prosperity for all. In order to do that we have to involve all the people of Afghanistan to find it.”
Yes, we hope, but if the Taliban are part of that, ‘justice’ will be ruled out, so pious hopes are worth nothing. Maybe some or many or most current Taliban can be turned, can become reasonable and fair and peaceable – but they have to be turned. A Taliban that remains the Taliban is not going to lead to a way to live together with justice and prosperity for all. That would be like (as many people have been telling the bishop) like expecting Nazis to do that. It’s not a question of painting people as black, it’s a question of understanding what a particular ideology is. An ideology that is centrally about coercion and bullying and death-for-the-noncompliant isn’t one that is going to become its own opposite merely because the bombing stops.
Bishop Venner’s remarks are perhaps an extreme case of stupidity and irresponsibility, but they should be seen alongside remarks that so many other people have made about Islam, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was quite prepared to see Sharia law extended to Muslim citizens of Britain. In fact, he said it was inevitable, if memory serves. That was surely almost as stupid and irresponsible. The problem is that people of faith really can’t find much fault with other people of faith. How can they? They are mining the same deeps, but there is still nothing there, no matter how long they keep digging. Poor Bishop Venner. He thought he was talking about religious faith, and that everyone would understand.
Just go back a note or so to the Archbish complaining because people consider the religious to be eccentric oddities, and religious concepts empty. Of course. But Bishop Venner obviously thinks that they are not. He probably rubs shoulders with people who, so far as their religious views go, are not very far away from the Taliban, and his reflection is that there is probably little to choose between them, so of course he’s going to think the Taliban will have a part to play in any future settlement. It’s probably true. That’s why this is a hopeless struggle. We’re really fighting against the Taliban to put the Taliban back in power. Just you wait and see. Because, in Muslim majoritary areas, government does not consider the ideas of the religious to be eccentric or odd.
So we should admire the Taliban for the two things about them that motivate them to be so cruel and destructive to those around them.
This is like saying we should admire Hitler for the fanatical strength of his convictions. That fanatical conviction is part of what made him such a monster. I sure as hell am not going to admire one of the things about him that made him so awful.
Is the strength of conviction in a belief ever to be admired? This idea would normally only come up in connection with religious beliefs where the depth of conviction is admired precisely when it is present without supporting evidence or when present even despite evidence to the contrary. In contrast, it is inconceivable that a strong belief in gravity would ever be considered laudable. The certainty that one is right and an unwillingness to admit the possibility that one might be mistaken has frequently lead people to consider and commit actions they would otherwise not have contemplated. Unshakeable certainty is not to be admired.
“So we should admire the Taliban for the two things about them that motivate them to be so cruel and destructive to those around them.”
Well exactly. Because they are better than people who are less religious and who aren’t therefore motivated by religion to- hang on…
Radio 4 gave the bish a platform to claim that, as usual for the theologically minded (sic), his words were taken out of context (OB heads this off by providing the context and as we can see it doesn’t help). R4’s slobbering deference to religious apparatchiki is in sharp contrast to their high-pressure broken-record interrogation style when faced with secular figures.
In his apology he said, We have also to distinguish between the militant Taliban and those of their number who are fighting because they have been coerced into doing so and who fear for their lives if they do not.
That was not the point he made in the original statement which specifically held up the most committed and loyal as being worthy of admiration, not the coerced.
“Is the strength of conviction in a belief ever to be admired?”
I suppose in moral questions it may be – in fact I suppose that’s the same thing as the power to refuse our consent. I think the bish was probably trading on that possibility, which provides a kind of cover for the religious versions of strong commitment. Ho hum.