The Golden Strawberry

"William Blake’s Jerusalem will no longer ring from the spires of Southwark Cathedral after it was banned by the church’s dean on the grounds that it was unchristian and too nationalistic.

Regarded by many as a paean to Englishness, it has over the centuries become an unofficial national anthem, sung at the last night of the Proms and by England rugby and cricket fans...

But the Very Reverend Colin Slee believes it is not “to the glory of God” and as such should not be sung by choirs or congregations at the South Bank cathedral, on of Britain’s foremost churches.

The ban came to light after the dean advised guests at a recent memorial service that it could not be sung due to its lack of religious content."

For those unacquainted with the poem or unaware of its full lyrics, they are here. It is fairly obvious that the Very Reverend Colin Slee is a prize muppet. He is also obviously unaware what a metaphor is.

Not that this is the first time that there has been a problem with singing Jerusalem in churches. From 2001, another vicar said:

"I enjoy it as a mystical poem, but it is not a prayer and it is not about God. Nor is it addressed to God, and nor does it contain any of the themes you would expect of God." He said people tended to interpret the poem in the nationalistic sense that England is best.

"We all want to be patriotic, but in a proper way, and this poem is just not appropriate. What it is actually saying is, `Wouldn't it be nice if Jesus had lived in England?' Yet we all know that he did not, so it is just nonsense. I can understand it being used at an army parade or something like that, but it is not suitable for a wedding."

If this vicar knew anything about history at all, he would be aware that the legend of Jesus visiting Glastonbury abbey dates from at least the time of William of Malmesbury in the twelfth century. Blake used this legend, added in a plea to return to nature, and ended up with a rather rousing lyric. And does this priest not believe that God created "England's green and pleasant land"? Sigh. Another Christian who does not understand what a metaphor is...

Anyway, I don't want to descend into a rant about ignorant clerics, tempting though it may be. Let's look instead at the response of some of the commenters on the Times article. These are people who, presumably, think they are well-informed and politically engaged. They are reading the Times website for a start, which suggests they are better informed than most. And they care enough to post a comment, an indication they think, care and have passionate viewpoints. Bearing this in mind, let's have a look at the comments.

One commenter asks:

Colin Slee are you sure you are a Christian and not a Muslim in disguise? (sic)

A remark that is stupid if meant seriously, and not funny if it is intended to be humourous.

Another brings up that old chestnut, political correctness:

So the PC Zealots have found something else with which to dowse the fire of English customs and Christianity!

In a discussion on British Politics, political correctness can never be too far away. The thought that a politically-correct liberal elite has been going round trampling on Britain's sacred traditions, banning hymns and blackboards, has been a staple theory of lazy right-wing thought for at least two decades. Whenever I talk to an aunt of mine about politics, it usually doesn't take five minutes before she brings up the issue of "political correctness".

Political correctness apparently developed in the mid-1980s, with various "banning-blackboard" type-stories invented by the Daily Express. And the myth took off. As Mark Steel wrote in Reasons to be Cheerful:

Much of the press got addicted from the fix of these stories, and like any addict, when the supply ran dry, they got desparate and made stuff up. The most famous loony left stories of the time - the council workers who couldn't say 'black bin liners' and the kids who had to sing 'Baa Baa Green Sheep' - were entirely fictitious. In any case, how was it that Thatcher had battered the unions, the miners and the Argentinian navy, but was powerless before the unstoppable might of the Haringey council gay and lesbian helpline unit?

Colin Smee is neither a Muslim nor a member of a politically correct elite. He is merely a fool. The notion of an "elite" is absurd anyway - in the same article the Church of England spokesman defended Jerusalem, saying the hymn "has its rightful place in Church of England worship". This is just the work of an isolated individual, not the work of an over-arching elite who wish to replace everything "sacred" about Britain's national heritage (whatever that is). 

The idea of a "politically-correct elite" is just one of a number of topics that continues to blight political discourse (especially discourse found in pubs, which as everyone knows is the only proper place to talk about politics). You just know, sooner or later, that someone will bring up "Iraq", and the chance to talk about things that might actually improve the lives of ordinary people has been postponed, for at least another couple of hours.

Cory

Atheists are fighting back. So long a shunned and persecuted minority, especially in the United States (where, disgracefully, religious observance is still a de facto requirement for the holding of public office) people of unbelief have begun to assert themselves publicly and resist clerical bullying. This has been spurred by the publication of several books, the most recent (and best) being Christopher Hitchens ‘god Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything’.

Hitchens is a throw back to the old eighteenth century man of letters, in the vain of Samuel Johnson and Percy Shelley. Hyper-educated, always pissed-off, able to wax lyrical about anything from the Bolshevik revolution to the Dreyfus Affair: he has no equal in Anglo-American journalism. His book is theologically literate and refreshingly worldly- combining a superb amount of scholarship and reading with a deep and broad knowledge of the world, gained from his extensive travels as a foreign correspondent for various newspapers and magazines. The tottering and crepuscular edifices of the world’s three major religions give Hitchens ample opportunity to display his legendary wit and sharp turn of phrase. For example, Hitchens proposes that the motto of the Catholic Church should be ‘no child’s behind left’, a reference to that organizations disgraceful record with regards its cover up of Clerical rape of children. The text is littered with classic one-liners like these. Indeed, humor and irony has always been a key weapon in the heathen’s rhetorical arsenal, Voltaire had it in spades, as did Bertrand Russell and the great Karl Marx. Hitchens deploys his own ample reserves of these tried and tested weapons-of-clerical destruction with scalpel-accurate precision and brutal effectiveness.

There seem to me two arguments afoot about the recent spate of proselytizing atheist books. The first one is the age-old question: is religion moral? Does it improve people’s behavior? Can a good life be lived without it? In this sense, Hitchens (and Richard Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’) are simply carrying the torch passed to them by their illustrious heretical forebears: Russell, Voltaire, Spinoza, Lucretius and Socrates. This argument is as old as philosophy itself, and, as Marx said, its commencement marks the beginning of all criticism. Where faith ends, philosophy begins. These books are wonderful primers for a life free from faith and religious dogma. In essence, they are continuations of Bertrand Russell’s maxim, that the good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge, free from fear of death and the constricting iron-age doctrines of faith preached by Priest and Church.

I have chosen a side, as most people who think seriously about this question do at some stage in their lives. The intellectual case against religion and the faith impulse is overwhelming. Darwinian biology has provided us with an explanation of our origins far more simple, beautiful and eloquent than anything contained in a man-made holy text. Religion and science are not, as Stephen Jay-Gould, the great evolutionary biologist, once said, ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: two spheres of human thought that deal with separate areas of life and experience. Religion claims to have all the answers, it always has done, and probably always will. The meaning of life, origins of the cosmos, the creation of mankind, how to live a good life – priests and mullahs have issued edicts and commands on these questions for thousands of years, thus fulfilling a basic human hunger for Answers. Of course, the religious explanations satisfied people in bygone eras, when our species was still in its infancy, unaware of the world and its structure. With recent adherence towards free inquiry and empirical observation, we no longer need such crude answers. God is dead, and science killed him.

The Churches know this, and have been fighting a desperate rear-guard action to stem the rising tide of enlightenment – witness the current controversy over the teaching of ‘Intelligent design’ to children in the United States . Hitchens describes this sinister phenomenon well when he says:

‘Intelligent Design’ is a desperate ploy by desperate men who know they have lost the argument and are trying to hold up their crumbling Churches by resorting to dishonest word-play. It is a sign of the times: religion is losing its iron grip on humankind.

A recent survey conducted at Piermont College in California by Phil Zuckerman, a distinguished sociologist, puts the figure of non-believers at between five hundred and seven hundred and fifty million – bear in mind that this excludes such thickly populated countries as Brazil, Iran, Indonesia and Nigeria, for which information is lacking or patchy. This makes unbelief the fourth largest persuasion in the world, after Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Most importantly, it is by far the youngest, with no significant presence in the West before the eighteenth century. Give atheism the same amount of time Christianity has had, about two thousand years, and there may be no theists left at all. One can only hope (and continue our rational inquiries and patient tests into the Universe).

The second question thrown up by the critics of the ‘New Atheists’ (a false term – they are part of a very old and very venerable radical tradition) is a strange one. They are accused of employing language that is too forceful; of being arrogant, of ‘offending’ people by their (allegedly) harsh tones and by doing the cause of atheism more harm than good by alienating moderates, who will be put off by their suppose ‘self-righteousness’.

This is a cowardly and ahistorical criticism. It is uttered by people who do not appreciate the great struggles of the past, when religion had to be forcibly separated from power. Religion is not a benign force which will give up its stranglehold on our species without a fight. It is run by cynical men who have seen an opportunity to grab power over the credulous and exploited it, thus causing immeasurable suffering to millions of people over the centuries. It is up to those of us who see things clearly to spread the fruits of reason to people who are still living in darkness. We can employ strident language and we can be just a principled and passionate as those we oppose. Remember, though, that the New Atheists have only published several books, they have not excommunicated anyone, or declared a jihad or launched a holy war. The secularist, reason-based way of doing things is undoubtedly the more civilized one.

If all this book does is inspire the non-believers and fails to persuade anyone to abandon their blinkered faith-based worldview, is it a failure? Avowedly not. Atheists can organize, we can campaign for secularism and the removal of religious indoctrination (not the teaching of religion, which is very important for an informed intellect) from schools. We can, and must, defend the iron wall that separates religion from state power; and we can celebrate our position as free human beings, capable of forging our own world through our own efforts – free from superstition and dogma.

The most beautiful chapter in Hitchens book is entitled ‘A Finer Tradition: The Resistance of the Rational’. It is a love letter not only to the great heroes of the past who have done so much for human freedom to think and speak, but to Reason itself. This is what Hitchens book is about, not so much an attack on the evils of religion, because that can and has been done and is obvious to anyone who cares enough to engage their brain on the subject. More so, it is an inspiring defense of Reason, and of humankind’s ability to apply its intellect to the world surrounding it. Using this precious gift, we can build a freer, more prosperous and just world. Hitchens thinks religion is the prime obstacle to this ‘New Enlightenment’; his new book makes an extremely strong case for this interpretation.

-posted by Adam

Can I nominate this article to be the worst ever written on Comment Is Free? That's a large assertion I know, but it's so goddam awful it can't just pass without comment.

Theo Hobson is concerned at the rise of "Militant Atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins et al. Which is understandable, seeing as he believes in God and all that. So what is his beef? Well, atheism is "pretentious and muddled". Furthermore:

Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.

No Theo old fruit, I think you're confusing "Atheism", where someone believes there is no God, with "Antitheism", which asserts that religion is essentially bad for the world. They are two different things. Strange that someone who says that atheists don't understand the nature of religion should then not understand that there are different strands in the non-believing 'church' as well - agnostics, atheists and antitheists. But then, as I will contend, this is because he is a prat. Theo goes on:

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

Yes, the militant atheists do, but other atheists don't, as said above. This is the equivilent of saying "Muslim fundamentalists commit acts of terrorism, therefore all Muslims are terrorists". Abhorrent, in other words.

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer.

..."but I'll carry on writing anyway..."

Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.

But religion is surely worshipping some supreme being - if not what are Christianity and Islam? Cults? Gentlemen's clubs? Anyway, the article plods on...

In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"?

This is just ridiculous. He's confusing religion with hobbies - like yoga. Religion can have connections between stuff like football, for instance - whole books have been written on the subject. But there is a difference between me being an Oldham Athletic supporter and being religious. I don't think Joe Royle created the universe, for instance.

Also confusing is this little throwaway:

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists

Well in that case what do they believe in? And what does this make the Bible; a sacred text or just a bunch of things that can be ignored at will? Theo doesn't say. He just goes on being a little too hypocritical for his own good:

I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice.

Not a charge that could ever be levelled against Theo Hobson, who did not once generalise about atheism. No, sir.

And looking at his CiF profile, there's more incoherence. It doesn't make sense to me anyway, but that could be because it's nearly 4am and I can't get to sleep:

For a few years now Theo has been trying to ‘come out’ as a post-ecclesial Christian theologian. He says we have to reinvent this religion away from its institutional past. A truly postmodern theology will serve this end. So far, so-called postmodern theology has been neo-orthodox, a highly erudite dead-end.

What the frig is postmodern theology? Does it think, as some postmodern historians do, that are all texts are fiction? How does the Bible come into that? No wonder it's hit a dead end.

I am sure there will be more literate critiques of Hitchens' book, but this sure ain't one of them.

Cory

Richard Dawkins, like other anti-theists and fervent atheists, can be a self-righteous little git can't he? On whether we should join forces with decent Christians like Rowan Williams to fight fundamentalism, he said:

"If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there's something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment."

For those wets like me who think that's a little, well, shit stirring, here's what Norman Geras has to say on a practically identical issue:

Should egalitarians today regret the efforts of Christians who fight for a more equal society because of Christian teachings about helping the poor? I know how I would answer these questions. I would say No. Presumably, someone might answer Yes on the grounds that getting beneficial effects from bad, faith-based, beliefs isn't worth it, because it might give those beliefs some extra life. But how is this different from the illiberalism of thinking that moral truth is encompassed by a single set of ideas, and denying that there are alternative ways - sometimes even starting from questionable premisses - of living a good life?

It IS possible to be an atheist and not piss off most of humanity after all.

Cory

I recently read two thoughtful and important books which deal specifically with the issue of Faith and religon. The first was written by Richard Dawkins, the celebrated populariser of evolutionary biology. It is called 'The God Delusion'. Snappy title, no? Dawkins is one of the best non-fiction writers working today; the quality of his prose and the lucidity of his written thought processes make the complex topics which he often deals with relatively easy to digest. Dawkins states his purpose in the preface:

My purpose in this book is to convert people. I hope a theist who picks this book up will put it down an atheist.

I do not find this elitist or arrogant. As an atheist myself, I would obviously welcome more apostates and infidels to the heathen fold, and Dawkins is just the man for the job. A professor in evolutionary biology, he holds strongly (and correctly) to the Darwinian line and offers a convincing explanation for the occurance of religion within a Darwinian context. Dawkins effortlessly flattens all the intellectual pretensions offered by the various 'great' monotheisms for their God. He joyfully and ruthlessly exposes the bible for the vile piece of bronze age mysogny and bigotry that it is; the Abrahamic God of the holy texts is revealed to be a wilful, jealous and vicious monster; anyone who comes into this book believing the Juedo-Christian tradition to be the source of what decent people would consider the good parts of our moral code will leave it free of illusions. We are good despite of any faith we might possess, not because of it.

There is one glaring problem with Dawkins' book however, one that is exposed very well by another book called 'The Conservative Soul' by an always readable Anglo-American political philosopher and blogger called Andrew Sullivan. This book is not solely about religion; it is about the Anglo-American Conservative tradition. It is one writer's attempt to reclaim it from the disgusting theocrats who have hijacked it for short term party political gain and in so doing unleashed a the terrible monster cocktail of reliigon combined with politics upon America and the world. Essentially, this book can be boiled down to the following phrase: skepticism is the only possible position to take with regards your own abilities to interpret the world; this skepticism therefore must inspire a separation of religion and politics , and that this skeptical mindset was best crystallized in the American constitution.

Sullivan devotes a good portion of his new book to faith, because faith has always concerned itself with politics. Sullivan is a Roman Catholic despite being a gay man and refuses (perplexingly)  to abandon the church which has done so much to hold back the movement for gay liberation throughout the centuries.

So, here we have a thoughtful, gay, obviously sane and secularist political philosopher who also happens to be a practicing Roman Catholic. The nature of this contradiction tears a hole a mile wide in Dawkins' book:

There are lots of sane religious people.

Dawkins seems to miss this. So focused is he on the intellectual lunacy of organised superstition that he misses the rather blatant fact that a good proportion of religious people are sensible whilst still clinging to their delusions. They set aside the contradictions and fallacies endemic to their chosen faith and live their lives according to the (few and far between) good bits. Sullivan is an excellent example of a very clever man who has made peace between his faith and his intellect. Now, do not misunderstand me here, I am a resolute anti-theist and would love to see religion disappear from the human consciousness, but I can also appreciate Freud here and accept that it is a curse our species will probably always have to deal with. And, whilst it is with us, I would prefer to see the liberal tradition triumph over the fundementalist one.

Dawkins takes a very positivist view of the prospects for the human race; he is pretty damn confident that one day we shall be able to explain everything through our application of the scientific method. One day, we shall create a 'crane' for the creation of the Universe, just like Darwin provided us with a 'crane' for the proliferation of species on our planet with his theory (now proven to be fact) of natural selection. I am not so sure. Obviously I would not be arrogant enough to claim I know how the Universe was created (like religious people). The blatant stench of untruth that surrounds the holy texts and the unbelievable sight of people still acquiescing to them in this day and age removes them from contention; but I do not share Dawkins optimism about our prospects. The sheer fact that he has had to write a book called 'The God Delusion' in a desperate attempt to shake people out of their fantasies in the year 2006 is a testament to the weakness and stupidity of the human race. We are all tailless mammels after all.

I suppose this could qualify as a book review. So here are the scores:

The God Delusion - 4 Golden Strawberries out of 5 ****

An excellent primer for any atheist. Slightly optimistic, and without any social explanation for why people cling to their delusions today, it is nevertheless an excellent read. Buy copies for all your theist friends.

The Conservative Soul - 4 Golden Strawberries out of 5 ****

A very well written and deeply personal account of one mans political philosophy. Shows the liberal and humble side of Conservatism which is so conspicuously absent from modern day American politics.

-posted by Adam

Long article here in the New York Review of Books about terrorism; its aims, tactics and capabilities. The author agrees with the theses of the books he is reviewing. Suicide terrorism does not represent insanity, nor does it constitute a grave threat to the West. Instead, it is a shrewd and calculated method of warfare used by the weak to strike at the strong. The author claims that Iran, a country currently in the grip of Islamic theocrats and holocaust deniers represents no great threat to the United States:

Compared, say, to the threat of atomic obliteration posed by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1989, the possibility of an Iranian attack on the United States does not seem very large. Even a nuclear-armed Iran would never dare strike the superpower because it would risk annihilation in response. Obviously America poses a far greater threat to Iran than Iran does to the United States. And perversely, it is this threat, more than anything else right now, that bolsters Iran's oppressive and unpopular government.

Yet the Cold War was between two relatively stable power blocs with each bloc run by a group of people who had no interest in suicide. Iran and the terrorists of Al Qaeda are of a fundementally different mindset. The USSR was run by atheists who maintained no belief in an afterlife and, therefore, had no wish to see a mushroom cloud outside the window of the Kremlin because a good chunk of the world rejected the tenents of Marxism-Leninism. Do we give Osama Bin Laden or the Mullahs of Iran the benefit of the doubt and believe that they love life just as much as we do?  Seeing that Bin Laden has expressed his desire for a universal Caliphate that would wage war against the infidel West countless times, we would be foolish to do so. Or, instead, do we look at their operational record and apocalyptic rhetoric and decide to face the threat rather than try to contain it?

The article constantly scorns the Bush Administration's use of the phrase 'War on Terror':

"The declaration of a global war on terrorism," says Richardson bluntly, "has been a terrible mistake and is doomed to failure." In declaring such a war, she says, the Bush administration chose to mirror its adversary:

Americans opted to accept al-Qaeda's language of cosmic warfare at face value and respond accordingly, rather than respond to al-Qaeda based on an objective assessment of its resources and capabilities.

In essence, America's actions radically upgraded Osama bin Laden's organization from a ragtag network of plotters to a great enemy worthy of a superpower's undivided attention. Even as it successfully shattered the group's core through the invasion of Afghanistan, America empowered al-Qaeda politically by its loud triumphalism, whose very excess encouraged others to try the same terror tactics.

But this is a war, one that the West did not start and one that the United States had no material or ethical interest in pursuing before it was declared. The Cold War was a period of foreign policy realism; it was perfectly acceptable for the US to back brutal dictators in the third world as long as they made anti-Soviet noises. The containment of Bolshevism overrode all other foreign policy factors. This cynicism and realpolitik, with men in suits in the West deciding which mass murderer would rule over which poor country, gave birth to the Horrorisms we now live with today.

And a proper analysis of the actual ideology professed by Bin Laden and his ilk is precisely what is missing from the NY Books article. Martin Amis does a good job of it here, in his Observer essay:

Savouring that last phrase, we realise that any voyage taken with Sayyid Qutb is doomed to a leaden-witted circularity. The emptiness, the mere iteration, at the heart of his philosophy is steadily colonised by a vast entanglement of bitternesses; and here, too, we detect the presence of that peculiarly Islamist triumvirate (codified early on by Christopher Hitchens) of self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred - the self-righteousness dating from the seventh century, the self-pity from the 13th (when the 'last' Caliph was kicked to death in Baghdad by the Mongol warlord Hulagu), and the self-hatred from the 20th. And most astounding of all, in Qutb, is the level of self-awareness, which is less than zero. It is as if the very act of self-examination were something unmanly or profane: something unrighteous, in a word.

For Rodenbeck (the author of the NY Books piece), Islamist terrorism is something to be beaten by methods more familiar to the police than to the military. He is right to an extent, but he tends to underestimate the capabilities of worldwide terrorist networks. Proof of their determination, their savagry and their callousness can be seen in any of their works. Indeed, one needs only to look at the cataclysm of Iraq, encouraged as it was by the fools in Washington, to see what happens when large numbers of Islamists engage in terrorist activities in concentrate. Ethnic strife it may be, but it is fueled by religious zealotry.

The declaration of a war on terror has not been the problem, nor has the use of the military and armed force. The problem has been the hubristic and imperial over-application of these assets in a manner not conductive to the destruction of such a slippery foe. More caution, more skepticism and less charging about like a bull in a china shop with regards the US army and the Arab world would perhaps prove to be a more fruitful long term strategy. But make no mistake, this is a war and we must prosecute it. The Theocratic wing of Islam must be destroyed. Not 'by any means' but by the right means. Backing Muslim liberals and ensuring that the zealots have no place to hide are two wings of the same strategy.

-posted by Adam

From the Guardian, the world's first museum to explain how creationism "works". The whole thing is worth a read, but this bit was my favourite:

But what, I ask wonderingly, about those fossilised remains of early man-like creatures? Marsh knows all about that: "There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."

When you have to go through all this verbal gymnastics to try and show you are "right", surely it's time to give up and accept you may have it slightly wrong?

Cory

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

Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab. This simple affirmation of western freedom of expression must be made before any discussion about the merits of Jack Straw’s latest pronouncement begins. What is important, however, is that we apply this principle of free expression without fear of causing ‘offence’ and not capitulate to insidious demands for ‘respect’. Causing offence is not a crime. People living in a free society should be prepared to be lampooned, ridiculed, criticised and mocked; it is not the States place to give a damn whether a citizen has been offended or not.

            We are capable, therefore, of having a free and open debate about the cultural and religious practices of the communities who live in this country. Jack Straw was right to raise the particular issue of Muslim women and veils. He makes the entirely reasonable point that a veil, which creates a barrier between two people, stymies discourse and social interaction. Much of our communication is non-verbal; and facial expression is a vital tool in our conversational repertoire. A smile or smirk or grimace can say as much as any monologue or hasty utterance. If you remove the ability of one person to see another persons face, you take away one of our best (and most immediate) ways of forging empathy with another human being; and we could all do with a lot more empathy when it comes to community dialogue in this country.

At this point (rather ironically considering my last sentence), I must declare that I find the niqab discomforting. A woman veiled from head to toe in cloth, with only the eyes showing, is a statement of difference which I cannot comprehend in any positive fashion. It seems to me that the veil is a symbol of the patriarchal nature of many Muslim communities. This assertion is borne out by the simple observation that, in the vast majority of conservative Muslim societies, women have to wear the vale and men do not. The veiling of women is a suppression of individual identity and it turns the wearer into a blank space. The point must also be made that, undoubtedly in many cases, women have no choice in the matter.

My discomfort (or anyone else’s) with the niqab is, for the over-arching reason given above, no reason for a ban. Instead of using the sledgehammer of the law to address this issue, we would be better off, as is nearly always the case, using the scalpel of dialogue and debate.

The niqab controversy is just the tip of the iceberg. How government can use policy to effect a successful integration of immigrant groups into British (or any Western European) society is an extremely important question. On the one side are the proponents of multiculturalism who have shaped public policy for the better part of three decades in this country; and on the other the absolute secularists who find their most powerful advocates in (for example) the French establishment. Both approaches are flawed.

 Social pressures, which are defended under the tenets of the doctrine of ‘multiculturalism’, mean that women are often dismissed or shunned by their communities if they refuse to don the chador.

Multiculturalism, the policy by which all cultures are to be afforded equal ‘respect’ (there’s that word again), is implicitly implicated in this tyranny over women. Fashioned with the best of intentions, it has now become a counter-productive way of welcoming people to our country. It promotes not a melting-pot where we all mix together but a segregated society of sealed off cultures, each sticking to its own. This results in such horrors as state funded faith schools and ethnic community centres, which are the wellsprings of sectarian strife.  A good illustration of this is the segregated townscapes of places like Burnley and Bradford; places which erupted in inter-communal violence not 5 years ago. Multiculturalism affords too much respect to reactionary immigrant traditions and, what is worse, results in the often elderly and gaunt proselytizers of these traditions being backed by tax payer funds.

-posted by Adam

Jack Straw has balls. No matter what your views are on this rather sensitive topic, credit should be given to him for bringing this issue out into the open.

For those people who have been asleep or missed this story for one reason or another, in a column for the Lancashire Telegraph (reprinted here in Comment is Free), Mr Straw said:

I decided that I wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven't.

Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.

I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can - almost literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say. So many of the judgments we all make about other people come from seeing their faces.

Which is fair enough. He has the right to ask whether the lady in question wishes to take off her veil. Just as said lady can refuse to lift the veil. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking. The simple matter is that it does feel there is a barrier to communication if you are speaking to someone whose face you can't see. Facial expression plays a huge part in transmitting what we say, and in our interpretation of what others say. It could help them get whatever message they have over more persuasively. The other simple matter is that if someone chooses to wear the niqab for religious reasons, there is absolutely no reason why they should be prevented from wearing one.

Interestingly, most women Mr Straw asks take the veil off:

I can't recall a single occasion when the lady concerned refused to lift her veil; and most I ask seem relieved I have done so. Last Friday was a case in point. The veil came off almost as soon as I opened my mouth. I dealt with the problems the lady had brought to me. We then had a really interesting debate about veil wearing. This itself contained some surprises. It became absolutely clear to me that the husband had played no part in her decision. She explained she had read some books and thought about the issue.

I can't help feeling that there has been some overreacting to Jack Straw's comments. To take one example on Comment is Free:

Not only are Muslims right to be up in arms at Mr Straw's suggestion but we hope the rest of society will join us in opposing his attempt to curb basic freedoms such as how we dress; surely a step too far even for this nanny state. It appears Mr Straw has not listened to nor understood the reasons for why women choose the veil as he clearly disregarded any reasoning when he requested that they remove it; and in all likelihood he has abused his position of power when making the request. Perhaps it is time for some more dialogue on the issue Mr Straw.

Also, here's Patricia Hewitt's take:

She said that in the past she had regarded the veil as a symbol of women’s oppression, but changed her mind after a meeting with a Muslim woman in her constituency. “She’d made the decision — not her parents or anybody else — that she wanted, as part of her statement of her faith, to wear the veil.”

I think the point is that Jack Straw isn't saying it's wrong to wear a veil in public, but in a private face-to-face conversation in his office he has every right to ask politely if they want to remove their veil. Just as they have a right to answer "no". Either way, nobody gets hurt.

While we're on the subject of veils (and hopefully it'll be a while before they return) the article I mentioned above from today's Times is worth a glance:

A MALE suspect in a major anti-terrorist investigation in Britain escaped capture by allegedly disguising himself as a Muslim woman dressed in a burka...

The man, who was wanted in connection with serious terrorist offences, evaded arrest for several days as police searched for him across the country...

It is the first time that a male suspect has allegedly disguised himself as a Muslim woman in Britain. However, the tactic has been used frequently by Islamist fighters — including suicide bombers — in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, often dressed in a burka to evade American forces hunting him.

Yes....but so what? We can't stop people wearing veils for that reason. By that logic, we should ban balaclavas, as well. And hoodies. And large hats. And tights, in case would-be bank robbers wear those on their faces as well...

Cory