Abrahamic or Judeo Christian?

I like this piece on why the idea of 'Judeo Christian' culture/heritage/society makes more sense than Judeo-Islamic.

Supermarkets sell alcohol?

A Saudi man who came to work in the UK is taking Tesco to an employment tribunal because - in his role as forklift driver - he hadn't realised the job would involve handling alcohol and so is claiming religious discrimination.

Let's hope that the employment tribunal kicks this one out before it hits the front door.


[edits: to remove the excessive use of the passive.]

Teaching evolution in schools

This is a really interesting article about how one biology teacher is teaching evolution in US schools and the type of difficulties he is encountering whilst doing so.

I especially like the conversation he has with a student about the purpose - and limits - of science:

Teacher (Mr Campbell):“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”

A student: “Is there a God?”

“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”

Bryce (a student who reads the Bible as literally true) raised his hand.

“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” he said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.”

Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully.

“If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree — would that damage your religious faith at all?”

Bryce thought for a moment.

“No,” he said.

The room was unusually quiet.

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

Politics, religion and incentive structures

This is a really interesting post on the role of religion in politics. Not in the theocracy sense, but in the incentive structure sense. To quote a key part:

Indeed, though I myself am pro-choice and mostly irreligious, it seems more likely to me that the main effect of faith is to spur people to embrace causes that are personally and socially inconvenient. Slaveowners didn't need religion to motivate them to defend slavery; they had a powerful financial interest in doing so. Similarly, the pro-choice movement, at least in my experience, gets most of its activist energy from reproductive-aged women who have a strong interest in being able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Well worth a read.

The Merciful, the Compassionate

Thank God - or Allah - that the Iranians are finally seeing sense and remembering one of the names for God is 'the Merciful' as they have now stopped stoning people.

Here.

Mapping religious America

This is a really interesting site here.

35,000 US adults were asked about their religious beliefs. The data is broken down by graphs and maps etc.

Worth playing around on.

St Anthony, Friday 13th, Irish 'no' vote.... coincidence?

Ironically, 13th June was the Feast day of St Anthony.

Where's the irony? Well, his full name is St Anthony of Padua, but he is the patron saint of Lisbon.

Oh, and he's also the patron saint of things lost.

I think the EU should have arranged the Irish referendum for a different date if they wanted to win!

Hat tip: Archbishop Cranmer

ps: The debate on whether ROI should allow its expats to vote in Irish elections is also an interesting one. It's the second time I've read about it in the past week - does this suggest that something might be changing soon?

A religious defence of liberty over equality

I tend to largely take a 'give unto Caesar' approach to mixing politics and religion.

I have a strong dislike of theocracy of any kind as I can only see it bring out the worst in people.

That aside, I think that the way religion informs moral politics is important in society. I am grateful to Cranmer for posting this speech by the Archbishop of York on his blog which gives an excellent religious defence of liberty over equality.

Difference between a cult and a religion

I was thinking, as one does, on what the difference is between a cult and a religion.

I instinctively believe that there is a difference, but I wasn't sure how to logic it out. I was also certain that cults could become religions and, less commonly, religions could disintegrate into cults.

Turns out that the tax man is useful sometimes, especially when religions are given charitable status and cults are not.

My good old friend (no, not alcohol, google) took me to a BBC 'e-cyclopedia' (no, I'd never heard of it either) and apparently the test is a five stage one. If an organisation displays all five stages, they're a cult. If they don't, they're not.

Definition of cult:
1. Uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
2. Forms an elitist society
3. Founder leader is self appointed, dogmatic, messianic, charismatic and unaccountable
4. Believes 'ends justify means' in raising funds and recruitment
5. Wealth does not benefit its members or society


Of course, the real difference is that my beliefs are a religion and yours are a cult :)

I'm sorry, but your soul just died

Very interesting article in NY Times discussing the relationship between faith and neuro-science.

For reference, the article "I'm sorry, but your soul just died" which they mention in the first paragraph can be found here.

It's startling how accurate Wolfe's predictions were.

Religious Tolerance

The right side of religious tolerance.

Abortion

A fairly simplistic article on the subject here made me think about my views on the subject again.

It's difficult, I think abortion is horrid, wicked and wrong. It should be quite right to try and reduce the number of abortions and abortion should not be applauded.

Yet I'm pretty sure that if I was to find myself pregnant tomorrow, I'd have one. Even if my life is stable enough today that I'd continue with the pregnancy, I know that if I'd have found myself pregnant a couple of years ago, I certainly would have had one.

Of course, I'm in the slightly nicer moral zone of having taken the type of precautions in advance that I hope mean I will never have to make the choice.

If a woman has become pregnant whilst using contraception, or after she though she could no longer bear a child or - obviously - in the especially nasty situations of rape etc, then I have no condemnation for that women. The pregnancy is not her fault, either because it was not foreseeable that it should happen because she was taking steps to prevent it or because not being able to take the relevant steps was forced on her by another.

However, regardless of the circumstances in which a woman became pregnant, I feel that a line must be drawn somewhere. The question therefore becomes, where should that line be drawn? In the UK at the moment, it's 24 weeks. In other European countries, it is much lower - I believe the limit in the Netherlands is 16 weeks.

Whatever the teachings of the relevant authorities say on the subject, I simple cannot believe that a fertilised egg is 'alive'. If the potential for life is the criteria, then with modern technology, we could make a human from the DNA in my hair. We can grow back fingers that have been chopped off (it looks like magic!). The potential for life is everywhere.

Equally, I cannot accept that a 39 week old foetus is not alive. If it were born, even without intervention, it could survive. It feels pain, it moves, it responds to external stimulus, it just feels human as a gut instinct.

Many people point out the irony of there being two wards in a hospital. In ward A, the doctors are aborting a 22 week old foetus. In the other, they are saving a pre-maturely born 22 week old child.

The idea of basing abortion time limits on the viability of a child (with medical assistance) is superficially attractive and feels fair. However, whilst it seems to be an appropriate moral ground upon which to base the decision at the moment, in the long run I think it is dangerous. 16-24 weeks shows a balance of interests between the mother and the foetus. But, medical technology is always improving and maybe, in the future, there will be viability at 6 weeks, or earlier.

Then there is no balance.

I think we need to find a different moral basis on which to base the decision.

More posts when I think of what it might be.

May 15th

In line with the popular 'because we can' flash mob attitude, for those of you who haven't seen, there is a plan afoot whereby on May15th 2008, about 220,000 people will panic buy carrots. In the UK, this looks to be between 50,000-100,000 people.

I urge everyone to join in this enterprise to pay homage to the absurd and surreal.

A Christian State?

There are a number of Christian sects who do various thing such as trying to run a town based on the ten commandments (see West Wing commentary). However, mainstream Christianity (including groups who may have pretty vigorous opinions on many others things such using prayer rather than medicine) usually shies away from creating a Christian State (in the legal sense of the word, not the community sense, obviously!). Pope Benedict has just arrived in America today and one of the first things he praised was that there was no state religion there.

Whilst the three Abrahamic religions share a number of features, to me, this attitude to religion's place within the state is one of the crucial separations of Christianity from Islam and Judaism. Christianity not only lacks any form of legal framework to create a Christian State (sure, it's possible to disagree with the frameworks of Judaism and Islam, but they are clearly there and fairly comprehensive, even in the modern age), but Christians are explicitly instructed to 'render unto Caesar', ie, let the state deal with the business of the state and let the church deal with the business of the church.

It has always puzzled me, given that all Christians accept 'New Testament trumps Old Testament', why fundamentalists (whether today or in the 16th century) feel the urge to return to the OT. Seems, to me, a clear example of working out what you want your religion to say and then finding the passage that supports your view. I realise that the NT is also quite clear on judging people, but this type of action really annoys me. Very glad the Pope made the Church's position on the issue clear.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

A number of scientists have criticised various church leaders for commenting on the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill where those leaders have opposed the Bill on moral grounds and have suggested, in strong terms, that MPs who profess (insert type of) religious belief would be going against their church's teachings.


To the extent that any opposition to the Bill is based on ignorance, I applaud the offer made by the aforementioned scientists to go and explain the parts that matter.

However, I am of the opinion that most of the religious leaders who spoke out against the Bill know exactly what it says and what it aims to do, have considered the issues in it in the context of their faith and have spoken out on that basis. The idea that people would only oppose the Bill because of 'ignorance' is charitable arrogance on the part of the scientific community, I fear.

The second criticism made of the stance of religious leaders (henceforth, shortened to Church leaders, as the people in the main firing line are Catholic, generally) is that they have no right to tell MPs how they should vote.

Now, I opposed the idea of the government only giving Catholic MPs a free vote on this issue, but compelling everyone else. I feel, very strongly, that MPs should have a free vote on as many matters as possible (but recognise that is quite possibly a reflection of my disdain for party politics), but that it is more crucial to have a free vote on issues of conscience than other issues. I'm glad that the government has backed down on this issue and has extended the free vote to all MPs, regardless of their faith (or lack of it).

But why, in my opinion, does the Church have a right to try and publically persuade its members to vote in a particular manner? Well, to me, the Church taking a public stance on this Bill - something they consider to have strong moral implications - is no different to say, Stonewall, taking a stand on single-sex couples adopting children. No one has a problem if Stonewall stands up and says to gay MPs, 'if you do not vote for this, you are betraying the gay community'. We recognise and encourage interest groups to speak out on their chosen subjects. The chosen subject of religious organisations is morality. Why do the people who criticised the Church not criticise Stonewall (and other similar organisations ) in the same manner?

It saddens me that the only reason I can think of for this double standard is unthinking 'anti-religion' on the part of the critics. I would love to know if there is another reason.

Christians v Google

Pornography (name your type), pro-anorexia websites, the UK's top 240 dogging locations, how to building a bomb, why [insert group of people here] aren't as human as the rest of us, holocaust denial, libel, BDSM tips, illegal downloads, westlife fansites... Google, we usually assume, has it all. It does not censor on the grounds of sexism, racism, homophobia or any other -ism or -phobia a Canadian equity policy would define as 'bad'.

It does, however, have one exception. If you are atheist, secular, irreligious or agnostic your (paid for) views on abortion are welcome. The one group google won't accept money from for the adverts which it uses to make a profit? Any religious group commenting on abortion. Apparently, the logic behind this is that religious views on abortion are automatically 'non-factual'. Leaving aside this assertion for one moment, since when has Google only accepted money for adverts from 'factual' organisations? And why is abortion a special case?

The Christian Institute are now suing Google on the grounds of religious discrimination.

More here. Thanks to Cranmer.

Evolution and Morality

Interesting Economist article on evolution and morality:

..."Dr Wilson suspects that the liberal package of individualism and confrontation is the appropriate response to survival in a stable environment in which there is leisure for learning and reflection, and the consequences for a group's stability of such dissent are low. The conservative package of collectivism and conformity, by contrast, works in an unstable environment where joint action, and thus obedience to their group, are at a premium. It is an interesting suggestion, and it is one that plays into the question of how morality actually evolved."...

Sharia Courts in the UK

Here is a useful article for background if setting up religious courts in the UK is a motion.

The Beth Din is the Jewish court system which already operates in the UK. If both parties consent to using it, personal matters (family, commercial etc) can be tried under Jewish law. The decision of the Beth Din will then be upheld in the usual courts if one party tries to breach the decision handed down by the court.

Worth bearing in mind that there are three main branches of Islam: Sunni, Shia and Sufi. 70% of British Muslims are Sufi and Sufi-ism is a branch of Islam which emphasises the spiritual side of Islam over the more practical aspects. The comment on page 3 of the article from the head of the British Sufi Council is therefore hardly surprising.

Perhaps the best argument for implementation is that it regulates what is already happening.

The best argument against is that (eg) women will be forced by social pressure to accept an outcome which is less fair than if they had gone through the usual court system.

"That it will reduce crime" is not a good reason. See Geeklawyer's commentary.

Religion as a moral compass

Firstly, sorry about the lack of posts. No excuse except not finding anything especially interesting to comment on.

Last Thursday's debate was on religion, more specifically, TTH condemns parents who enforce their religion on their children.

Given the teaching speech at the beginning of the evening, I'm not surprised that the 'religion is good as it provides a moral compass' argument came up.

When I had initially sat down with Dan and planned that point, the point was as superficial as 'the ten commandments are generally a pretty good way to live ones life'. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the merit in the argument is not the superficial one, but the deeper one.

All societies condemn murder, theft, adultary etc. whether they are Christian, Hindu, Animist or Atheist. They might quibble over what the words mean, but the core thought is there. Religion, in my mind, doesn't impact on these big morals particularly. Where it does have more value in the moral sphere is on deeper issues. Concepts like forgiveness or retaliation are given a particular slant by religions. For example, Christianity is pretty explicit on the issue of turning the other cheek whereas Islam allows ideas of justice being a form of personal retribution to influence shari'a law. Equally, the idea of judgement for religious mis-deeds. Modern interpretations of Christianity (which I think are the better ones) would generally condemn societal punishment for religious transgressions, instead, allowing God to be the arbiter. To use Islam, again, the punishment is explicitly allowed and encouraged.

The role of religion as a moral compass, therefore, is more vital when looking at subtle issues such as forgiveness than looking at 'easy' issues such as 'thou shallt not kill'.

The true meaning of "Jesus Saves"

Here