The Veil and Pragmatism
In my post entitled In Defence of Secular Dogmatism I said that:
We must back the liberal wing of all religions simply because we can then convince them of the merits of atheism afterwards. You can’t argue with a man wearing an explosives belt. You can argue with a man who has admitted to himself that he is human and therefore has his built in bullshit detector turned on, rather than forcefully repressed by blind faith.
And then a few days later in The Fraught Politics of Integration I opined:
A pragmatic approach to religion within the framework of a secular constitution would be the ideal. Whilst religion (which is often expressed in culture) continues to wield such power over people’s lives, the government should address it and the problems it creates
A element of pragmatism is essential to any political worldview. I have been shouted at and (foolishly) labelled as 'Reactionary', 'Thatcherite', 'Fascist' and 'Stalinist' for simply saying that seeing the world for what it is is itself a vital principle. Principles are important, and I would consider my opposition to organised religion and denial of the faith 'impulse' two of my most cherished. But principles must be accompanied with pragmatism, because if you do not see the world as it is but rather as how you want it to be then principles become meaningless.
It is all very well being opposed to all religion unremittingly, but at the same time a coherent and reality-based worldview must take account of the fact that very many people do believe this claptrap and, even more regretfully, have it at the centre of their identity. Ask a religious person to give up their faith and you are asking them to take a big knock to their pride. Expectations and policy views must then be adjusted accordingly to allow for this human stupidity.
In The Times today, David Aaronovitch takes this pragmatic view:
They are, even if they are anti-gay or backward on women’s rights. So, until very recently, was most of the British Establishment and almost all the churches. They are in, even if they hate my politics, excoriate Zionism, call me degenerate, loathe Darwin and want to build absurdly oversized mosques instead of social housing. To all of that we can say: “Very well, let the argument between fellow citizens commence.” All they — or we — have to do is obey the law. And in that regard the veil-wearer is far more a proper Briton than the veil-snatcher.
When I next blow on my birthday candles I shall wish that a million people would read Ian Buruma’s new book, Murder in Amsterdam, dealing with the killing of the Dutch controversialist Theo van Gogh by an Islamist terrorist. Exploring the impact of Muslim immigration into the Netherlands, Buruma concludes on the absolute necessity of making distinctions between who is an enemy and who needn’t be. It will be the Muslims’ choice, but, Buruma writes: “Such a choice depends partly on the way they are treated by the country in which they were born. And this depends on another choice: whether to accept an orthodox Muslim as a fellow free citizen of a European country.”
And of course, living in a free country means freedom of conscience, religion and speech. Obviously the veiling of women is a hideous thing, but trying to stamp it out a la France is only the road to more veiled women. No, as is always the case, the government should concentrate instead on facilitating the conditions whereby the debate within the muslims in Britain can be heard by all. This would neutralize the poisonous and quasi rascist rantings of Melanie Philips and Rod Liddle and also encourage the rest of Britain that muslims are genuinely talking about how their identity can be adapted for living in a free society. This argument will only have one result, of course. The reactionaries will lose and the veil will eventually come off; but it will take time.
-posted by Adam
