No Blinking
It’s a bit like belonging to a Nazi party, or the KKK, or the God Hates Fags gang, and then trying to claim not only that of course one’s belonging to that organization doesn’t in the least mean one can’t “speak up” for the rights of Jews or blacks or gays, why on earth would it, but also that even asking the question is absurd and outrageous and indignation-worthy. It’s a bit like that, but to many observers it doesn’t look like that, because we’ve been so relentlessly trained to think of religious beliefs and teachings as in some profound way entirely different from political beliefs. But why would they be? Because it’s taboo to challenge them, that’s why – and that’s a terrible reason.
Ruth Kelly[‘s]…full title is secretary of state for communities and local government…which involves responsibility for equality, including gay rights. It is this last responsibility that lit a firestorm when her appointment was announced, with activists arguing that one of the country’s most high-profile Catholics was unfit to speak up for rights that her church actively opposes. In the same terms, many women’s rights campaigners have argued that her position as minister for women is also questionable…[G]iven that her faith is explicitly anti-abortion and anti-contraception and that its very highest level of priesthood is open only to men, is she really the best-placed person in government to speak up for women’s rights?
I would say no. I would say there is a real tension there, and that it’s no good just pretending that tension is inconceivable. But that’s the road Kelly takes.
As a devout Catholic, though, is there room for manoeuvre on these issues? Does her faith clash with women’s rights? “No! . . . Oh come on!” Kelly exclaims, frustrated. “We risk getting into the situation where you say people of faith can’t hold these jobs – I mean, that’s absurd!”
No it isn’t. That’s just it. It’s unacceptable, it’s ‘offensive’, it’s taboo, but it’s far from absurd. It’s simply no good pretending that “faith” never conflicts and never can conflict with secular ideas about rights and justice and equality.
It’s an utterly bizarre decision to put her in this post. She’s abstained on every Commons vote relating to gay rights, and when it came down to it I think I can guess which way she’d vote on abortion.
Of course her private views on abortion rights, gay rights etc (however much we might disagree with her) wouldn’t matter if she hadn’t been made a bloody spokesperson for them.
Actually I don’t think even that more qualified version is true. Surely her private views on anything she is going to or likely to vote on would indeed matter for any political job? Surely people who run for public office do in fact have to tell voters, precisely, what their private views are on public matters? How else can voters make informed decisions about which candidates to vote for? Surely political figures don’t get to go all huffy and say ‘that’s none of your business, how dare you!’ on public subjects?
Cherie Blair gets to say that, because she’s not elected (or appointed). But I don’t see that any elected or appointed political officials get to say that.
Yes, I completely agree that her views on public subjects matter to the people who vote for her. Presumably her constituents knew she was a member of Opus Dei (and what that implied about her beliefs), but a majority of them were still happy to elect her as their MP. I certainly wouldn’t have been.
Of course voters should be able to make an informed choice by knowing what candidates believe about different issues, but the fact is that Kelly has already been elected. What I object to is that she has now been appointed to a position which clearly conflicts with her religious beliefs.
Yes. That is objectionable. Of course, over here we get nothing but religious zealots appointed to high office – but hey, that’s our cross and we have to bear it, along with Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear.
Heh. Yes, the UK is a way behind the USA in the ‘religious wackjob’ stakes. At least Bush’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage didn’t go through though…thank heavens (or somewhere, anyway) for small mercies!
There is no doubt that Ruth Kelly’s appointment is as absurd as her attempt to argue that there is no “conflict of interest”.
In Australia, up until a few months ago, there was one drug, and only one, that was under the direct control of the health minister (and not the TGA): RU-486.
The minister concerned, Tony Abbott, maintained that his desire to control the use of the drug for abortion had nothing to do with his religious principles: as a conservative Catholic.
It’s possible that a few people even believed him.
Well, aren’t atheists an intolerant bunch. Combined with ignorance about Christian belief and good old fashioned anti-Catholic prejudice, you would not be out of place on the SWP site, or the Daily Mail.
Christians who choose to enter public like will uphold the laws. A practising Jew will not ban ham sandwiches even though they would never eat one themselves. I expect Ruth Kelly opposes abortions, though I would be amazed if she opposes gay rights. But she will uphold the law, just as she will treat all people equally.
OB, you comment about cold unfeeling comments by Jesus in the Gospels. I’ve beem reading the Gospels and Acts for over 40 years, and I’d struggle to think of any without wrenching sayings out of context, so, as I could easily have missed them through familiarity could you point me to them, please? Thanks
JM, are you sure we’re intolerant, rather than simply spelling out what is often considered taboo or offensive (or intolerant) to say? Are you sure we’re not just saying, more bluntly and literally than you like, what is the logic of the situation? If Ruth Kelly believes the teachings of the organization she belongs to, why are we to assume that belief will be bracketed off for the purposes of her job? Why wouldn’t that belief, rather, inform everything she does in her job? Isn’t that how morality works?
In other words, “Christians who choose to enter public life will uphold the laws” is merely an assertion. Some perhaps will; others perhaps will not; in any case if shaping and interpreting the laws is part of the job of the Christian in question, that’s not necessarily helpful. The ham sandwich thing isn’t helpful either; dietary laws are not straightforwardly comparable to laws about abortion or homosexuality. Your confidence (or is it certainty?) that Kelly will “uphold the law, just as she will treat all people equally” is again merely assertion.
John 8 and John 15 are a couple of chilly places.
As for dietary laws, Jews don’t care what non-Jews eat. It shouldn’t be difficult to dig up some stories of religious ministers in Israel trying to prevent ham sandwiches becoming easily available and I seem to recall Kibbutz Mizra having more than its fair share of hassle because it raised pigs.
Of course, nothing prevents people from behaving hypocritically, but that is not a characteristic of a religion, such as Christianity or Judaism or, I daresay, Islam, although I know less of the practice of Islam.
If a Christian takes office in the UK then they undertake to uphold and enforce the laws of the UK. There is nothing in Christianity which permits a Christian to say one thing and do another. In fact, Christians are called on to obey the government (Romans13), pay taxes, etc. There is nothing in Christianity which requires a Christian to treat people unequally and plenty requiring them to obey the law. Were an avowed atheist to be appointed to office, would they be regarded as hypocrites because of the existence of church aided schools? Perhaps an atheist should not be permitted to be an education minister?
The intolerance I referred to is plain. You are saying that a practising Christian (and the same would be true for a Muslim or Jew) cannot be a minister because of private beliefs about personal practices. That seems pretty intolerant to me (ie you cannot endure the thought of a minister being a practising Christian). And I thought I could read bad old fashioned anti-Catholicism (I’m not Catholic) in your posts.
AS far as John 8 is concerned, that is the tale of the woman taken in adultery. You know, the one where Jesus said “Let whichever one has committed no sin cast the first stone”. John 15 is pretty harsh too “My commandment is this: love one another, just as I love you. The greatest love a person can have for for his friends is to give his life for them”
I don’t expect atheists to believe in God or even respect believers or their beliefs, but I do expect rationalists to look at evidence and not paradet anti-believer prejudice as any thing more than prejudice.
Best wishes.
I’m a bit stuck in sites I vist. I prefer left sites, as that’s where my politics are, but too many are viscerally anti-religion. I think that’s a big mistake for the left to make.You can point out superstitions and flaws and things faiths get wrong, but where you are dealing with something as universally observed as religious belief,( and one which, as it seems confined to and only capable of apprehension by human kind, presumably confers evolutionary advantage on the species) I think the left will marginalise itself if it does not try to understand the sources of belief and recognise itrs strengths, as well as all its flaws.
“If a Christian takes office in the UK then they undertake to uphold and enforce the laws of the UK.”
But that’s not the issue, because people who “take office” also make the laws of the UK; ministers make policy; that is the point.
“There is nothing in Christianity which requires a Christian to treat people unequally”
Oh yes there is. That very call to obey the government, for example. If the government in question is one that does in fact treat people unequally (a situation that is not unknown in history and even now), then that call does indeed require a Christian to treat people unequally. So does Paul on slavery. So does Paul on women speaking in church.
“You are saying that a practising Christian (and the same would be true for a Muslim or Jew) cannot be a minister because of private beliefs about personal practices.”
No, that’s not what I said (or am saying). Read carefully. I said “It’s simply no good pretending that “faith” never conflicts and never can conflict with secular ideas about rights and justice and equality.” You seem to be making exactly the argument that I am disputing: that it is a priori impossible for religious beliefs (for example) to interfere with, for instance, secular ideas about rights and justice and equality. But you haven’t said why that would be the case – you just invoke intolerance, instead. This tactic is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re trying to declare a taboo.
Yes, I know that’s part of John 8; but John 8 42-47 is another matter – the children of the devil stuff. That’s not to slang the historical Jesus; scholars consider John quite ahistorical anyway; the point is that not every word put in the mouth of Jesus in the gospels is kind and loving.
“I don’t expect atheists to believe in God or even respect believers or their beliefs, but I do expect rationalists to look at evidence and not paradet anti-believer prejudice as any thing more than prejudice.”
Of course. But I take myself to be doing that. Again – you seem to be claiming that there can be no conflict between religious belief and political job; I’m claiming there can be; it seems to me that your claim is far more dogmatic, thus far more like mere prejudice.
In fact – if you’re going to go on calling me prejudiced and “viscerally” (as opposed to rationally) anti-religion, I would really like you to explain clearly exactly why it is impossible for religious belief to conflict with political (egalitarian, say) ideas. I don’t mean just handwaving about prejudice, I don’t mean how dare you or how can you, I mean a real explanation.
Dear OB
I ‘ll address your last point first
“It’s a bit like belonging to a Nazi party, or the KKK, or the God Hates Fags gang, ” and you then slide on to discuss the fitness of Ruth Kelly to carry out her role as a minister (and some of your commenters go on to talk of the Bishop of Rome having no dominion in this realm). It’s not hard to see why I think you are viscerally prejudiced. It’s not hard to think that you were implying similarity between Nazis and Christians.
You then disagree with my assertion that there is nothing in Christianity requiring Christians to treat people unequally ( This is based on core Christian documents such as the creeds – Nicene or Apostles, Lord’s Prayer, Didache, 39 Articles) You cite the fact that as Christians are required to obey governments, and some governments have unequal laws or mandate unequal treatment (for example, in Sharia compliant countries) Christians complying with the law are complicit in unequal treatment. So you are a citizen of the US where in some states same sex marriage is unlawful, Does that mean you also regard same sex marriage as unlawful if you are not in revolt against the Government?
I really do not think you can cite Christian compliance with the law as approval of all the laws of a Government, just as atheist compliance with the law does not mean you approve of all the laws.
My point is that if a Christian is a member of a Government with stated policies and laws that Christian, in Government will uphold the law..
The reason why we treat religious beliefs and politics as separate is because of the malign effects than can arise when they are intertwined. That’s why Church and State is separate in the US and should be separate in the UK.
You were right to point out that you were arguing that it is impossible to argue that belief can never conflict with secular ideas about rights and justice and equality. But you could make that statement about say, dialectical materialism, or any political philosophy that does not agree 100% with your definition of rights and justice and equality. But I do not see any conflict between the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Christianity.
AS far as John 8 42-47 is concerned (a) it talks about God and the Devil and as atheists don’t believe in these I can’t see that these are relevant to teaching on how Christians should behave in this life and (b) I think he is talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. One thing we can be sure of, atheist or believer, and that is the existence of hypocrisy.
“It’s not hard to think that you were implying similarity between Nazis and Christians.”
But I wasn’t. Feel free to slot any joinable organization with strong core beliefs into that conditional.
Besides. Play fair. It’s sloppy to talk of intolerance and prejudice on the basis of what you think I’m implying. Especially since I have a tendency to be pretty explicit about such things, wouldn’t you say?
“I really do not think you can cite Christian compliance with the law as approval of all the laws of a Government”
I’m not. I’m simply pointing out an obvious factual flaw in what you said. You tried to claim too much, that’s all.
“My point is that if a Christian is a member of a Government with stated policies and laws that Christian, in Government will uphold the law.”
But as I said, people in government don’t just “uphold the law”, they make the law, so their beliefs are relevant.
“But you could make that statement about say, dialectical materialism, or any political philosophy that does not agree 100% with your definition of rights and justice and equality.”
Of course I could. And I would.
This is relevant for instance to hearings on US Supreme Court appointments. That’s why nominees get so thoroughly questioned. Their beliefs are highly relevant, and it is right that they should be expected to tell the Congress and the citizens exactly what they are.
“I think he is talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.”
I know that! The point is, he’s not doing it in a sweet and gentle manner. Again, I’m not slamming Jesus, I don’t even think he said it at all; the point is that he is quoted as saying it. I was simply answering this of yours –
“OB, you comment about cold unfeeling comments by Jesus in the Gospels. I’ve beem reading the Gospels and Acts for over 40 years, and I’d struggle to think of any without wrenching sayings out of context”
That’s a cold unfeeling, indeed brutal, comment! And sayings of that kind (as I said, there are more in Matthew and Luke – yes, about Pharisees, or Jews in general) have been behind a lot of anti-Semitism for a couple of thousand years. The Jesus of the gospels, contrary to myth, is not all forgiveness and love. The real Jesus may have been, but the one in the book is not.
Just to clarify – I don’t think (and I’m not claiming) that Christianity in general requires people to be cold and unfeeling, or unfits them for public office. Different branches of the religion make different requirements of adherents. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, recently made it part of being a member to agree that married women are subordinate to their husbands: that’s why Jimmy Carter left the SBC, which he had belonged to for his whole adult life I think. Catholicism is more authoritarian than many other denominations – that’s not news. And Opus Dei adds another level.
But really my main interest was to point out that it’s wrong to think there can’t be any conflict between a religious belief and holding office.