Giving fundamentalism a secular boost
By Giles Fraser
9 Mar 2007
Media atheists of the narrower kind are fast becoming the new best friends of
fundamentalist Christians. For every time they write about religion they are doing very effective PR for a fundamentalist worldview. Many of the propositions that fundamentalists are keen to sell the public are oft-repeated corner-stones of the media atheist's philosophy of religion. Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is 'the real thing' and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even.
This endorsement is of enormous help to fundamentalists. What they are really threatened by is not aggressive atheism - indeed that helps secure a sense of persecution that is essential to group solidarity - but the sort of robustly self-critical faith that knows the Bible and the church's traditions, and can challenge bad religion on its own terms. Fundamentalists hate what they see as the enemy within. And by refusing to acknowledge any variegation in Christian thought, media atheists play right into their hands.
Fundamentalism was invented only in the 20th century. None the less, in their struggle for secular values, commentators such as Polly Toynbee are effectively handing fundamentalists the title of official opposition. In the context of the fight to extend anti-discrimination legislation to homosexuals, that's a dangerous gift. For it grants the fundamentalist's worldview unwarranted extra lobbying power with government. Many Christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin. Far from it. We think it's a gift of God - a means by which many show love and commitment and compassion. This is not an eccentric view within the church. It's also the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, though, admittedly, he is insufficiently bold in expressing it.
Indeed, a great many Christians are deeply committed to the sexual orientation
equalities legislation. They would have no truck with those who want to ban homosexuals from Christian boarding houses or classrooms. But bigots who dress up in the clothing of faith are being encouraged by media atheists in the view that orthodox biblical Christianity is intrinsically anti-gay. That's rubbish. And the only people who benefit from this line of argument are the religious gay-bashers. Ignoring the fact that Christianity helped invent secularism, Polly Toynbee (writing in The Guardian) recently described the row over sexual orientation regulations as "a mighty test of strength between the religious and the secular".
Christians of the hardline right will have been nodding their heads in agreement. For the more fundamentalists can set up the disagreements concerning religion in terms of a Manichean struggle between the forces of God and "atheistic secularists", the more troops they can summon to the defence of intolerant versions of Christianity. The media generally made a great deal of Christians protesting outside parliament against the passage of anti-discrimination legislation through the Lords in January 2007. And it was easy to be left with the misleading impression that all Christians oppose it. Not a bit of it.
As the editorial in Church Times, effectively the Church of England's trade paper, rightly complained at the time, the "broad support for the Equality Act from the Church of England and the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians". The same article goes on to point out that "mainstream Churches do not share the views of the protesters, and the majority of Christians will have no truck with discrimination on grounds of this kind". And thank God for that.
[So, do outspoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris fuel religious Fundamentalism? What then is the alternative? To be softly ‘critical’ of theism? To be quiet in the face of bigotry hoping that moderate Christians will (eventually) reign in their more outspoken brethren? Or maybe we should be expected to support the various world religions in their mutually exclusive efforts to ‘save’ mankind for their own particular God? Or maybe, just maybe, we should call it as we see it?]
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
5 comments:
Food for thought. I've wondered about the persecution angle and I think there's something to it. I still think I'll go with your last option though.
Yeah, this article was kinda flat. Maybe if Fraser would have focused on how 'media' in general confuses the shit out of everyone and generally gets things ‘wrong’ as a point-of-course I would have had some tendency to agree.
I’m more concerned about fundamentalists dragging Christianity through the muck and the mud.
CK you want to know what he expects the Atheists to do?
My response would be, don’t get in the camera and prove you’re only separated from those you’re against by the words you’re blindly hurling about. I don’t care what’s coming out of your mouth if it’s as nastily skewed as what was coming out of the fundamentalist’s.
Case in point, Sam Harris who’s work I know only by the article that CK posted a week or so ago on this site. To me he’s no ‘great defender’ only a great ‘pot stirrer’. He didn’t even make any good points, just a big nasty ‘you’re stupid’ casserole of semi-eloquent verbiage.
What should the Atheists do? Same thing the moderate Christians should do. Offer up some solutions that maybe both sides would be willing to swallow. Maybe make this less of a ‘war’ and more of a ‘disagreement’. I don’t know, do something very NEW for the times and handle things with kid gloves.
I know it is so frustrating because you almost can’t watch these protestors (and in my case the frothing secular backlash) without feeling sick to your stomach. I want to just tear into them too.
Just remember that when you start “calling it like you see it” you’re going to make Fraser’s point if you land hard on the principles of Theism and you’re abusive towards the ‘whole’ religion and not just the fundamentalists. I don’t think you’re really helping their objective, but you’re definitely hurting yours.
One would think that criticizing "extremists" (and not religion itself) is the answer, but I'm not so sure. Dawkins makes the point in his book that those were not radical Muslims in the UK that did the suicide bombings. They were well-mannered British citizens with young families. It wasn't some crazy life-long mission to kill. It was a simple ingrained-belief that their actions would be rewarded in the afterlife. A belief not unlike the millions of Christians who fuel a conflict in the Middle East or encourage the destruction of our environment because they believe they will hasten their ascension to Heaven.
I'm not necessarily saying that I believe this, but it is worth mentioning that the possible enemy of peaceful and stable society is religion itself. And I certainly don't fault people like Dawkins and Harris for stating the obvious.
sirkolgate said: I’m more concerned about fundamentalists dragging Christianity through the muck and the mud.
As all Christians should be I think.
sirkolgate said: What should the Atheists do? Same thing the moderate Christians should do.
Emphasis on the word *should* There are moderate Christians who do indeed speak out against their more fundamentalist bretherin but not too many or too loudly it appears - certainly from this far back in 'the Gallery'. Maybe if the moderates & the liberal Christians spoke out more forcefully then strong atheists such as Dawkins and Harris wouldn't feel the need to?
sirkolgate said: Just remember that when you start “calling it like you see it” you’re going to make Fraser’s point if you land hard on the principles of Theism and you’re abusive towards the ‘whole’ religion and not just the fundamentalists.
I do sometimes wince at comments that usher forth from Dawkins and Harris but I also think that sometimes harsh things need to be said. Religion in general has had such a free ride from the rest of us that it's not really surprising that there was a 'backlash' waiting to happen. I understand that some theists are taking real offence at what's being said about their beliefs but I think a lot of it is the shock of being questioned at all. It's only really recently that it was even possible to ask the questions that need to be asked in a public forum. Religion should not take for granted that it is beyond criticism - even passionate emotional criticism.
I'm fairly sure that most of the venom directed both ways will be short lived then the war, if there even *is* a war, can continue in a more civilised fashion. But I think that the days of unquestioned religious faith are over and theists should start getting used to it.
Post a Comment