I do not know quite what to make of Richard Dawkins. He knows a lot about that field of science which explains how organisms develop over time, which was born with Darwin’s study and publication of On The Origin of Species. Dawkins has made it his life’s work to persuade people of the “facts” of science, not the “fiction” of faith. In so doing, he has strayed well into physics, psychology, astrology, philosophy, and, of course, theology. I do not know what to make of him, because I do not know quite what he wants to be. I do not criticise his field of work: to the contrary, as I hope to explain, it is extremely valuable for atheist, theist and agnostic alike. I am all in favour of a multi-disciplined approach to science, and am far more likely to read a science book that is about religion than one just about science – I am interested in religion over science. It is perhaps a surprise, then, that I have only just read a book by Richard Dawkins.

Good Writing, Poor Argument: Richard Dawkins

From the excerpts of this and other works, I had formed the opinion that Dawkins is a very good writer, but that his argument is flaky. I will admit to being wary of reading The God Delusion, especially because its aim is to “disprove” religion as a concept in a way that religion cannot “prove” itself. I know Christians who are divided on the issue of whether we should ignore the likes of Dawkins, or should fight fire with fire. My view has been that it is impossible to fight fire with fire, because religion is in a field of study so divorced from science that scientific process and argument cannot possibly be used to defend or promote it. In this, I think Dawkins and I agree – Christianity, or any of the other religions he despises, cannot advance a coherent scientific proof of the existance of God (or the resurrection of Christ, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.) in the same way that Dawkins can prove the age of the universe and theorise on its conception. We agree, too, on the utter nonsence of the so-called “Intelligent Design” theories that attempt, by word games and feebly inaccurate logic puzzles that scientific evidence of a “creator” exists, and can be proven. I suspect that “Intelligent Design” theory is like a particularly good dream for Richard Dawkins, as Christians attempt with woefully misplaced confidence that they have found scientific proof of God. They try to fight fire with fire, and fail. They try to out-science the scientists, and fail. Quelle surprise.

On occasions where I have heard Christians discussing Richard Dawkins, I felt myself getting annoyed at their approach. He was a threat – the “militant atheist” monster trying to destroy religion. Why couldn’t he just understand faith? We must guard ourselves against him. If you read The God Delusion, make sure to take an antidote. (Several theologians and religious theorists have produced mass-market editions directly questioning The God Delusion.) These books are very useful entries to the debate*, but they have been poorly deployed by Christians. Church bookstalls and Christian bookshops proudly display multiple copies, but Dawkins’ original is conspicuously absent. It is not for me to suggest what people sell, but I would like to see The God Delusion met as a challenge of ideas, and a genuine debate to take place in the minds of the pew-fodder rolling through Churches each week. For anyone to take anything Dawkins writes at face value is a huge mistake, but it is equally stupid to foster prejudiced views of Richard Dawkins. Yes, Dawkins delights in the quasi-argument, the semi-assertion, and the half-truth, but there is no excuse for taking his rebutters at face value either! If Dawkins’ chief argument is that religion blinds by complacency in ignorance, one can only prove his point by harbouring false views about his books! I see “organised religion” as a necessary (and biblical) part of Christianity, but I firmly believe that nobody should ever take what is said from the pulpit at face value. We should all be theologians in our own ways, arriving at biblical interpretation or personal commitments because of an independent thought process that delivers that interpretation. In other words, fully-formed beliefs should not be parachuted into our minds by professional religious leaders: they should challlenge us and equip us to genuinely seek the answers for ourselves. In this, then, I think Christians should be encouraged to examine Richard Dawkins and his theory of delusion as well as being encouraged to read those who have challenged him in print.

It was impossible to begin reading The God Delusion without reminding myself of my faith. I did not read the book seeking conversion to atheism, and nor did I begin it determined to finish with my religion more firmly entrenched than before. I read it as a genuine attempt to understand why Richard Dawkins thinks relgion is bad – which is, after all, what the book is about. I am a firm believer that religious faith is meaningless if one is too scared to approach a book that seeks to undermine it, and also that religious people do the world a great disservice if they fail to engage in a genuine debate on such subjects as the psychology of religion. As I have tried to explain, I think fighting Dawkins-esque science with an embarrasingly childish pseudo-scientific response is a flawed plan. Dawkins loves to dwell on evidence, and a favourite maxim is that we should be taught how to think, not what to think. It is unclear whether he would have people taught the possibility of psychological or philisophical thought, but one can only speculate.

Given his love of fact and evidence, then, it is amazing to see the regularity with which Dawkins gives his reader semi-facts. It does not take an Oxford professor to see why courts of law ensure witnesses give “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Half-truths can be pursuasive, but they are no way to win an argument. Very rarely in The God Delusion does Dawkins outline differences in opinion in the theological field. He expects his readers to take his understanding of theology at face value: sure, some theologians would agree with him on each individual point, but it is no way to present an argument. One comical example is his argument that, to paraphrase, nobody understands the Trinity. Another, clearly inserted for laughs but actually revealing much about Dawkins’ attitude to the Bible, is that Adam and Eve were banished from Eden and mankind cursed for all subsequent generations because they were caught “scrumping”. In the same section, he elaborates that they had been told about the danger of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, stating simply that the Knowledge turned out to be that they were naked. Such flagrant disregard of scholarly debate on theological matters is commonplace.

Where The God Delusion makes reference to theological debate, Dawkins tends to rubbish one position, then praise a “more sophisticated” or “more advanced” argument. It is Dawkins’ prerogative to decide what is more or less advanced, but I reason it intolerably arrogant to make such distinctions in what remains a thoroughly theoretical field. Dawkins bases his academic study on the fact that religion has no “evidence”, but deals with philosophy and theology as if it is transparent which side of each debate is reasonable. I wonder what a more “advanced” theory of theology actually is to Dawkins – is it one which is closer to his point of view, or one which has more theoretical evidence behind it, or one which more people agree with? I have come to conclusions on many theological issues, have decided to remain actively seized of other matters, and have yet to encounter more. In each case, I do not demean the opposing positions – they may turn out to be right after all. Dawkins cannot get over his belief that a scientific approach can be taken towards every academic field: theoretical fields simply cannot be ransacked with declarations of “more sophisticated” like that!

Many examples can also be cited where Dawkins deliberately reduces some Biblical issue to a comical nonsense, and then bats it aside with the reader in full agreement. When he portrays the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, he conscieously turns the tale into parody in order to make moral judgements of God. Abraham was variously “cooking” and “barbequing” his son. From Dawkins’ point of view, a sacrifice has no significant difference in practice to a murder, but to the religious mind there is a very big difference. To Dawkins, God was engaging in some elaborate comic-book jape in asking for Isaac’s charcoaled flesh, and then turning around to say “only joking!”. If Dawkins’ interpretation of events was accurate, God is to be decried in sing-song playground tone as a great big meanie. If the story is taken seriously by someone of religious conviction (all three major monotheistic religious do, as Dawkins hurries to point out, take it seriously) then it is a thoroughly revealing test of faith. God, let’s not forget, never intended Abraham to butcher his own son, but did intend to have him believe that he would. Again, we can all sympathise with Dawkins if we take his worldview. He could sympathise with Abraham there if he wanted to, by taking a religious worldview. This divide between Dawkins’ mind and that of the religious reader is striking – and, I think, has nothing to do with science.

A chapter of The God Delusion claims that we do not get our morals from religious texts. Here, a two-fold process of argument is at work. First, that Yahweh, Jesus et al are evil and generally pretty poor moral teachers. Second, that the argument “yes, but we don’t think like that any more” is evidence that we have taken our morals from somewhere else. Atheists have moral codes too, don’t you know, but they are not grounded in the Bible. The trouble with the first part of the argument is that Dawkins is attempting to judge morality from his point of view, which is surely a mistake? A couple of tweaks to his thinking would fundamentally change his view of the relative morality of God. He decries God for being “jealous and proud of it”, but if Dawkins had made the world one might expect a touch of gloating! Here, morality is relativised because God’s jealousy is squared with his supremacy. To God, it is immoral to attribute glory to things which he made, not to the maker. As such, idols are prohibited and we should instead love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, etc. God’s violent jealosy is misplaced and immoral if he is not God, but is perfectly justified if he is. Thus Dawkins’ argument is redundant before he begins because he begins with the (I believe false) belief that God is not, in fact, God. If you judge God’s morality from a position which rejects God, you will find the character of the Bible unpleasant at times. If you see him as God, though, he is the purest picture of morality because, after all, he invented it. (For what it’s worth, Dawkins fails to understand that few people believe we should take God’s view of the world as our own: he is only moral because he is God, and we would be acting very immorally if we were to behave like God.) The second part of the argument – that the “we don’t think like that any more” argument is evidence that our morals come from elsewhere – is illogical in light of the dissection of the first. What Dawkins sees as the “picking and choosing” of what Biblical morals we now follow, another would see as distinguishing between the sort of thing God should be dealing with and the sort of thing we should be worried about.

The chapter of The God Delusion that I found most interesting dealt with the reasons why atheism does not automatically make amoral people. Hitler and Stalin are often cited as examples of atheism gone wrong, but as Dawkins rightly says their religious conviction is irrelevant to the deeds they committed. It matters not whether Stalin was an atheist – lots of Christians are bad people, too, and lots of atheists are good. Quite why, then, Dawkins felt the need to explain, in several pages, that Hitler was probably a confessing Catholic at least into the War is beyond me. This red-herring aside, Dawkins must be credited with providing a very good answer to the problem of religious belief in dictators. Many have professed their desire to do God’s will, but many have not. The common theme here is dictatorship, not religion or lack thereof. When Dawkins argues that a lack of faith does not lead people to do evil things, but greed might, he strikes gold. Morality in this sense is not the preserve of religion – right and wrong, on a sliding scale of evilness, is usually commonly accepted when we are looking at things from the same position. Thus we can call Hitler evil without expecting a huge backlash: evidence does rather support the assertion.

Antagonistic: The God Delusion

It becomes more difficult to reach agreement on relative morality when not looking at things from the same position. Dawkins uses the example of a survey of Israeli children, asking whether the actions of Joshua were justified. Overwhemingly, Joshua was vindicated in the eyes of the Israeli children. But if the passage of scripture is replaced with an identical story, just using a different name for the protagonist and cities ransacked, the actions are judged immoral. Dawkins argues that this is because Israeli children have been brainwashed into seeing Judaism and its teachings as perfect, while having an otherwise standard view of morality on examples outside the Bible. Once again, just one leap of faith separates this from being illogical nonsense to perfectly reasonable – if God exists. Dawkins says he doesn’t, so his argument holds. If one were to imagine God existing, the Israeli children have actually made the logical moral judgement. Everything Dawkins decries as nonsensical is, in fact, perfectly reasonable if only you believe in God. Asking “How can you believe in God when it is backed by this kind of broken thinking?” is a bit of a misnomer. If one believes in God, the thinking is very joined-up indeed.

The book, therefore, rests on the presumption that God is a false idea. If he is real, every argument advanced becomes redundant. Dawkins’ whole theory in dissecting the myth of God rests on the understanding that he does not exist. If one believes he does exist, none of Dawkins’ arguments stand. God is not lessened, the extent of his reach not truncated, by any of Dawkins’ theory because his theory presumes that God does not exist at all. Any religious person can condifently read The God Delusion and know that if they are right – that God does exist – then Dawkins has done nothing to limit his scope. The whole book does not prove God’s non-existance, but rather presumes it and then tries to explain why. The religious person’s argument that “God exists, therefore…” is an unconvincing start to evangelism. Dawkins is guilty of the same. There remains a fundamental difference of vision between the theist and the atheist, and Richard Dawkins fails to transcend that. In this, the evangelist has a harder job than Dawkins: the evangelist attempts to break across this boundry of belief/unbelief, as we are all born in unbelief. Dawkins hates that children are taught religion from a young age, but no mature Christian faith is based on indoctrination. Instead, the believing Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu has crossed from unbelief into belief in a way Dawkins fails to reverse. If Dawkins aims to pursuade the religious of the error of their ways, he needs to combat the problem that they have the very faith Dawkins’ arguments require to be absent in order to work.

For what it is worth, I feel the need to raise what I think is the most glaring problem in Dawkins’ theory. He sees religion as “filling a necessary gap” - a neat phrase, but, of course, meaninless – as a sort of response to some earlier human emotion. He thinks religious belief is a manifestation of an in-built need to have psychological reassurance, using the example of a child’s imaginary friend. This must have had some use in times gone by, but is now “misfiring” to cause religious conviction: blind faith. It is, therefore, seen as a wholly irrational figment of the imagination. If religious conviction is genetic, and is useless, why does it continue to perpetuate? More fundamentally, though, if religion is built into genetics, why should we fight it? To put things in Dawkins’ own terms, to argue vociferously against religion is like the giraffe stretching its neck – worthwhile perhaps for the individual, but of no use to its children. Dawkins sees the harm caused by religion as affecting only those alive today, so there is no genetic reason for this gene/meme to mutate into non-existance. Genetic theory might explain why religion came into being, but is unable to envisage a reason how or when it might dissipate in the future. For Dawkins, then, our brains tell us to be religious but it is an irrational desire that we should fight. Each generation is cursed with a genetic code leading us into the psychological safety-net that Dawkins argues is dangerous! Dawkins’ decision to use the phrase “fills a necessary gap” is possibly the most notable thing he got perfectly right – he argues that religion is invented by genetics to do good, but it actually does harm, but genetics will not rid us of the desire to follow religion, so each generation should actively fight against their subconscious desire to believe in the unbelievable, which their brain tells them is for their own good, for their own good! In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins believes he has found the source of religion, but cannot envisage a time where it will be no longer. We must, he effectively argues, fight against our own judgement to through out any faith that our brain might tell us is preferable because it is irrational. Our genetics are misleading us, pulling us into a cycle of religious nuttery. Dawkins believes that the Human brain has evolved to such a stage that it safeguards against psychological harm by causing it.

I’ll stick with God, thanks.

- - -
*I own a couple of these books. I like to see a genuine debate on these issues, and it is refreshing to see some adequate attempts to challenge Dawkins on issues where some balance is required. I thoroughly recommend reading The God Delusion and an antidote or two, if only for the sake of educated balance.

Excuse me while I gibber in bafflement for a moment. A homophobe doesn’t want to perform civil partnerships for gay couples on religious grounds - and an employment tribunal says that’s okay. Why? The whole point of civil partnerships is that they’re secular; religion doesn’t come into it.

But, apparently, it does now. The tribunal sets a dangerous precedent with their decision. It’s okay for the religious to discriminate against gays on the grounds of their sexuality, it says - even in secular situations. And it’s not okay to ensure secular functions are carried out if the religious functionary due to carry them out isn’t comfortable. Note that sexuality isn’t often considered a conscious choice. Religion very definitely is.

And, guess what? That’s how the fundies read it too. Quoth Lillian Ladele, the bigot concerned:

“I am delighted at this decision.

“It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine.

“Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”

And, of course, selective, homophobic readings of an ancient text should be used as an excuse to bully and harrass people over their sexuality. Ladele claims to have won a victory for liberty; she hasn’t. She’s set a precedent where public servants - who exist to serve the whole public equally, on the basis of need - may discriminate against that public on the grounds of their own irrational prejudices. A victory, in short, for discrimination.

Hadn’t we got past all this?

(Or: For Solidarity’s sake, comrade, don’t mention Kronstadt)

On a day where the Prime Minister appointed by his party declared himself against a return to the 1970s, a time which the far-left (and perhaps only the far-left) consider with some nostalgia, at least in contrast to the decade which followed who better to see first thing than Tony Benn?

Watching him at Marxism 2008 had a particular joy; in that it was one of the immensely rare occasions during which his audience would leave him substantially to the right. If, even after all these years of attendence, this left him unsettled it did not show an inch. I showed up very mildly late and he was in full swing; clearly in his element while speaker. His speech roamed over a broad number of points and annecdotes, distinctively Bennite in nature, covering everything from his rather surprising advocacy of rationing (the average height of the working class man rose by two inches due to it) to his ethical vegetarianism (his forward-thinking son Hillary told him fifteen years ago that if all the grain fed to animals was fed to people this would end famine).

It was obvious that the SWP presence (heavy) was left bristling by his outright suggestions that Labour was worth struggling to save and although his suggestion that Labour would swing left after a heavy loss to Cameron (something which would effectively require New Labour to end) he did acknowledge that Labour was not socialist but had socialists in it “Just as the Church has Christians in it”.

Speaking of which, he did not adopt an anti-religious tone but was opposed to religious authority. It occured to me later on (as well as the day before, when I was talking about the importance of imams concerning Respect) that Marxism falters when it comes to understanding the power of religious leaders. Its understanding being limited to wealth results in the power of a poor man standing on an upturned box and raving about a being that loves as it condemns being somewhat alien to them. Preachers often lack fortunes but are able to marshall people through belief in matters beyond the material. Although I would challenge the genuine existence of such forces as firmly as would Marxists I fear that their focus upon the tangible leads them to underestimate the might of that which is elsewhere. Even if it is merely steroid-fed speculation it gives copious power to the undeserving.

Regardless, Benn stated that his internet research had led him to the conclusion that all religions taught much the same message; which was that you should treat others as you would expect to be treated. Perhaps a rather simpler formation than the Universal Ethic tirelessly sought by renegade Catholic Hans Kung but the method of his learning struck me as interesting. When he was taken up on this point by an American concerned about the media (worse in his own country than here, he said, but perhaps America is simply more right wing I would suggest) who stated that the internet was inherently “structured” to favour the bourgeois Benn stayed firm, stating that he was sometimes uncertain why he still watched television as he got all the news he wanted from the websites he followed. A man after my own heart, clearly.

(more…)

Rowan Williams yesterday struck out at the break-away faction in terms that were certainly a lot more vigorous than he is known for. Desperate times call for desperate men.

In his piece on the matter last month Douglas argued that the schism was a cause for joy amongst athiests. This is of course untrue and instead appropriate for anti-clericists and anti-theists, a largely inter-locking pair of factions who the Anglican Church have perhaps done more than any other Christian denomination to consider the criticisms of. I can think of no mainstream Christian Church closer to harmless.

This Church being torn in two and half of it being now utterly unrestrained in its bigotry {which is rather formidable in places} is perhaps not the most pleasing state of affairs imaginable. We can but hope that the importance of all religion fades and that the division within the Church weakens its resources and causes both sects to die away. Rather like happened to failed political project, Respect. Not to mention a plethora of other political parties.

Sadly a protracted demise does not tend to happen to Churches for a while longer. Or at least has a far lengthier duration. At least mild amusement is resulting from this one. For instance not the phrase “Protestant sect” being used against the Conservatives, with a claim that this is all that they amount to. As opposed to the Anglican Church, which…?

Worth a read is Ali’s response, which is, as ever on these matters, so well informed and heavily considered I feel like an amateurish ignorant when approaching this issue by comparison. In it he opines that a split was “Inevitable”. I imagine so but articles such as this were doubtless unhelpful. Rational analyses of the institution of marriage were doubtless highly provocative, although not least because it left the conservative case entirely in shreds.

It also makes it pretty clear that considered thinkers such as Chane can not co-exist in a Church also including deranged reactionaries such as Akinola, especially not while both fill prominent positions. Of the two it would cause far more numerical damage to lose the latter, but intellectually I have little doubt as to which would be better to collaborate with.

So it was the position no leader of any organisation would want to place himself in: compromise quality and lose the masses or cede to fierceness and be forced to purge some of the finest thinkers the Church has? An unenviable position for any man, so perhaps for Williams, someone without a doubt a man with the air of the ditherer about him, the reactionary wing forcing his hand is something of a relief.

At any rate, we can only hope that the manner he has adopted in relation to this issue {if anything one too soft} is sustained. Whether I actually desire reconciliation between the two factions is somthing I am presently uncertain over.

Time for some “militant secularism”; another shredding of faith schools, I feel. Observe the latest obscurantist wail from their defenders:

Selective, divisive, a law unto themselves: faith schools have been depicted by Ed Balls, secretary of state for schools, families and children, as a danger to Britain’s 9.8 million school-age children. Balls made his allegations last March, and has commissioned Sir Philip Hunter, the chief schools adjudicator, to investigate the 7000 faith schools in England and Wales. Hunter’s report is scheduled to reach ministers in September – and will, once again, stir up the row over faith schools.

Ball’s charges against faith schools can be dismissed one by one.

Really? They seem justified to me. Faith schools ground pupils in a seperate religious community, and so are divisive; they virtually require pupils to hold that faith, and so are selective; and raise hell (hah…) whenever the state which funds them imposes the same controls as it does on other schools it funds. Selective, divisive and a law unto themselves? Just a bit.

But, let’s hear what Ms. Odone has to say:

The schools do not select middle-class pupils or reject troubled ones. The intake of Christian schools reflects a broader ethnic range than comprehensive schools in the same area.

Class and race are synonymous? Look, we all enjoy a decent non-sequitur now and then, but to cite one phenomena and cite evidence (strangely without validated statistics) from another defeats itself. Balls’ point isn’t even addressed, save with unsupported assertion - so it isn’t addressed.

Moving on:

The schools are not divisive. Fully 76 of the 77 British citizens convicted under the Terrorism Act of 2000 attended a secular state school; the exception was home-schooled.

And this is meant to be serious journalism? When an author manages two complete non-sequiturs in 6 sentences, they need to be denied the oxygen of publicity. It doesn’t matter how many citizens arrested under the Terrorism Act attended secular schools; that’s simply not the point.

Faith schools are inherently divisive. They encourage pupils to conform to the tenets of a certain religion and inculcate a sense of community with others of that religion; they thus perpetuate faith communities. These faith communities are seperate and frequently opposed to each other. In a word, they’re divided - and faith schools perpetuate this. So, actually, it’s got nothing to do with arrests under the Terrorism Act of 2000 and more to do with the socio-cultural implications of telling a child they’re different to other children because of what’s written in an ancient tome.

But there’s more:

Faith schools do not charge parents for places. Although some schools did ask for voluntary contributions from parents even before admission, these pay for extra teaching for religious studies and, in the case of Jewish schools, for protection.

So, what you’re saying is that they do charge parents money and so exclude low-income families? A “voluntary contribution” before admissions sounds suspiciously like one on which admission could hang. Nothing would need said; the very fact that the charge comes before admission would simply worry parents, who then pay out just in case something goes wrong with the application goes through.

Not that those charges would be necessary in a secular school anyway; surely, “protection” money is required because of the school’s very insularity? The group seperates itself off from the community; that community is left in ignorance of that group’s traditions and finds it harder to challenge prejudices; the prejudiced, meanwhile, have an easy target in the isolated group. They’re not asking for it - but they’re hardly making the problem better.

Ed Balls’s attack fed, and amplified, the strident secularist stereotyping of faith schools as ghettoes that teach a backward mentality.

Let’s check a popular definition of the term, “Ghetto”: “a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group.” Substitute, “education system,” for, “city, especially a slum area,” and, actually, that’s about right. A faith school sets itself up as a seperate entity within the state education system justifying its existence by its religious status - an educational ghetto.

In fact, Labour’s own Commission on Integration and Cohesion found that faith schools support local communities in terms of sharing their resources, and generating social capital.

Note the strange jargon to confuse the uninitiated; “social capital,” is an evasive non-phrase straight out of a sociology textbook. The author again misses the point; the schools might support their own, local communities, but their perpetuation of an insular, religious mentality seperates them from the national community (such as it is) and so is divisive.

Moreover, faith schools are crucial in the emancipation of Muslim girls: those who attend Muslim schools are more than twice as likely to go on to higher education than those who attend secular state or independent schools.

Perhaps more importantly, they’re more than twice as likely to have the doctrines of a religion elements of which treat women as second-class citizens forced on them. As they would do with a Christian or Jewish school; the patriarchal elements of Abrahamic faiths are inescapable.

Very emancipating.

As for the urban myth that faith schools teach creationism in science classes, this is precisely indeed a myth.

Now this just needs editting; “precisely indeed”? Ugh…

Faith schools have an excellent academic record, serve their local communities, and ground their students in a religious as well as national identity. Why squander this force for good?

Because they ground their students in a religious identity, and because that grounding is tax-funded. Parents have the right to educate their children as they wish, so long as that doesn’t harm the child; but they don’t have the right to do so on other taxpayers. All parents fund the education system. That system should thus be open to the children of any parent at any point, regardless of faith. That requires universally secular state schools; that requires an end to state funding for faith schools. Simple, really.

Oh - and since when was a religious and national identity a force for good? Division is the word she’s looking for.

For Ed Balls – and Gordon Brown – the answer is obvious: to woo the “old Labour” rump of the party, equally committed to secularism and comprehensive education.

Or maybe it’s because they believe in an open and fair education for all children?

With an eye to the No 10 succession, Balls is setting himself up as the old Labour candidate by bashing faith schools.

This is just laughable. Balls is setting himself up as Old Labour - by bashing faith schools? Odone could at least do the scaremongering properly and realise that the Labour left aren’t very well disposed to Balls because of City Academies and more. They care about socialism as well as secularism.

He deserves to fail.

Oh, look, another unsubstantiated point. Typical, no?

Ali will no doubt come and remonstrate with me about this soon for numerous doctrinal errors. But - say goodbye to half of the Anglican Church, comrades. Observe:

The Anglican Church faces what is in effect a schism this weekend after the declaration last night of conservative evangelicals to create a “church within a church”. The new body, called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, will have its own bishops, clergy and theological colleges.

The conservatives enjoy irrelevance, it seems. They don’t understand that erecting a wall around themselves will simply further cut them off from reality. Their ideas are rooted in a dogmatic, hardline interpretation of an ancient socio-cultural text not known for its consistent practical relevance. That ancient culture no longer exists; and so its stranger emanations simply don’t wash anymore.

“Modernising” Christians (hah…) get this. They realise that the bigoted fury of a vicious desert-society rests at odds with modern civilisations (such as they are) - but argue a relevant message rests beneath. Very debatable; but a more pragmatic approach to doctrine does allow them slightly more leeway in fighting the losing battle that is attempting to convince the public of a scientific age to believe in the sky-god. They can drop they hair-shirted adulterer-stoning no-wearing-clothes-of-two-materials bit and try and address the issues relevant to modern life.

So - part of the Anglican church drops away and seals itself off to new converts. The rest, meanwhile, goes on as usual - but looks weaker. Humanity looks on puzzled at a sectarian squabbling which for many outside the church equates to a dispute over whether God is a sky-fairy or a cosmic-pixie. And then decides religion is clearly barmy. Just so long as nobody dies for it…

In this post Douglas valuably enquired:

if Obama is such a dangerous Muslim, then why make such a fuss about his (Christian) pastor? He can’t be a fanatical liberation Christian and a closet fanatical Muslim at the same time.

However Douglas here appears to have made the crippling error of staging an underestimation of syncretism. For it would seem that Chrislam provides the solution to the Republican proxy’s shit sticking woes. What could be better?

It even came into existence in Africa…

Was Einstein’s view on Judaism, as well as all other religions.

It seems both more understandable and such a greater pity that the man declined sophomore premiership of Israel, that considered…

Rather to my surprise I found myself disagreeing vigorously with this article on the BNP’s {futile} efforts to shed it’s anti-semite “image” and appeal to bigoted Jews using it’s new school rhetoric of virulent Muslim aimed bigotry.

{Bit of a mouthful, that last phrase. But then, so is “Islamaphobia”. I suspect that the failure of efforts on the left to combat that resurgent phenomenon is its inability to find a non-silly name for it.}

This is not because my efforts to peer around a part of the far-right from the inside has turned my head but instead for leftist reasons. All the same, I can not help but feel quite the contrarian for dissenting as forcefully as I do with this quote:

We, in the Jewish community, will not tolerate any form of racism or prejudice…I would be thoroughly ashamed if any member of the Jewish community voted for them.

That was from Henry Grunwald, who is in no less prestigious a position than the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He is currently working along with Sikh and black aimed efforts to ensure that the BNP gain no seats upon the GLA in the forthcoming elections. Despite this it is my suggestion that Mr. Grunwald is currently acting as part of the problem rather than solution and that that quote evidences his lack of grasp on the only way to end racism and bigotry entirely and forever.

Firstly we must understand and appreciate the beast which we wish to slay. What bigotry of all stripes consists of is a rejection of the common worth shared by all sentient beings. This deceives us into considering some of those around us as of worth and dignity and others as separated from them and thus not. I would suggest that this is an entirely intrinsic element of human nature that can be reduced severely but never eradicated entirely. As long as there are those separate to us then this difference will be observed and many will consider the distance a mandate for degradation. As long as “We” refers not to us all but a specific group isolated and smudged into one we have something of a problem.

The argument for “diversity” is one that I can accept. We are all eclectic beings in our own various ways and to say that difference should be forcefully eradicated wherever it is found is certainly not my argument. I am many things and have been many more but conformist is not amongst them and, I suspect, never shall be. However I would suggest that realising and coming to terms with the natural tendency of humanity to differ in exciting and vivid ways is by no means the same as accepting society dividing itself into sects. For what is opposed is the separation.

How does this relate to Mr. Grunwald? Easily. He has divided a section of society that he considers to be as of himself. He responds to them personally in a way that he would not to the rest of humanity. He holds them to a different standard and treats their actions in a different way. He does not concern himself with individual circumstance but deems membership of this, entirely fictitious, group to be sufficient. The only element of this group’s identity which is even verging upon finite and tangible is their race. Mr. Grunwald is opposed to racism. Note the specification in his words. He would not feel ashamed if any Britain voted for the BNP, he would not feel ashamed if any human held such views, he would simply feel that emotion in the instance of a Jewish person voting for them. His area of humanity affect him personally in a way that the rest do not.

Why does this pose a problem? Because it is this very attitude that gives the BNP and all the fathomless plethora of those like it air for the flames. It is the viewpoint that considers our species divided into sub-sections that are to be evaluated and judged accordingly which leads the fragmented, distorted, perverted mindset which breeds intolerance. Let us not imagine that this destroys the reason of white Britain. Consider that Samson Blinded, amongst the most deranged blogs I have had the displeasure to read, would not exist without this perspective. Consider this article. Dov Lior has stated that “A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.” This sort of blatant nonsense relies upon the “Chosen People” myth, yes, but it also is entirely dependent upon viewing humanity as an inherently shattered mess of various groups that clash and shunt yet remain ever divided.

Zionism depends upon it, the most tolerable face of the expansionist nationalism that you can somehow appreciate the dogged, dog-ended imperialist BNP being in favour of. Somehow expect. But the brutality remains: Zionism desires, even demands, a Greater Israel and if the cost of this is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians then where is the concern? They were not Chosen. Responding in kind the lives of Israelis are deemed something of negative value by Arabs, a concept more construct than observation in itself given that in Sudan various Africans have taken the title upon themselves and thus elevated their position above those of the “blacks” they slaughter.

It is the cause of every pogrom, from the most notorious to the most recent. The SS were taught that all Jews were ultimately the same and thus killing children was a pre-emptive strike. Elements of the New York black “community” in the ninties thought that the running down of a young child somehow condemned the entire Jewish “community” and thus the destruction of property and the fatal knifing of an overseas student could somehow be justified.

Where does this carnage all lead back to? The conflation of the differences desired by humanities to other and the worth of all, that is mutual to mankind. And as for the notion of somehow it being possible to sustain a society divided between sections that will enjoy each other, that is purely preposterous. The eminent Mr. Grunwald feels in a fashion that is far from isolated to him: once you are part of one group the rest are, by very definition of distinction, further from you than “your own kind”. You belong amongst them and thus, in whatever way, you are out of place elsewhere.

This is at it’s most observable when challenged. Noah Feldman wrote a highly telling article last year where he discussed the reaction of his Orthodox former school to his relationship with an Asian woman. This consisted of something that can be described in a single word: denial. A group photograph was taken of all the former members and both he and his girlfriend had been removed as surely as a comparison I have assured a friend I will not make. The response to this from some was striking, with one person claiming that Feldman was spitting in the face of those who had educated him by not accepting their reductionist view of humanity. Worse still can be found here where it is estimated “We lose approximately 100 Jews every day to intermarriage and assimilation” and quotes a website named “JewishSurvivalSeries” approvingly in that Intermarriage has created “A silent holocaust in this generation.” Which makes the PETA meat industry/Shoah comparison seem only moderately offensive.

The Nazis loom large, though. It is to be expected but their usage seems largely to be most perverse. They were mentioned as well in another reaction to the aforementioned article here where falling in love and having children with someone not of your own kind {end sarcasm} is constitutes an attempt to “Finish the job Hitler left undone.” To write about the utterly unreasonable air-brushing of his airbrushing is to adopt as your demograph “Subscribers to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” This is an irony of the highest and blackest order as the very cause of the Holocaust was the fear of the National Socialists that the fine Aryan race would have its supremacy diminished and spirit perverted by the foul and insidious influences of the Jew. Inter-breeding was what was feared by Hitler above all, as well as seemingly by those touched upon by this foul meme which rejects division of humanity over ancient lies.

Those who propose inter-breeding being accepted, and perhaps encouraged, are those most likely to make it entirely impossible for second attempt at the Third Empire of any manifestation. Indeed Jew-German inter-marriage was perfectly common in German society in the years preceding Nazi ascent and had the rise been averted most likely would have solved the problem through semen within a matter of generations. What those in favour of “assimilation” argue is effectively the absolute opposite of the deranged rantings of Mein Kamph. Embracing the merge ends woes and improves mankind. But it also eliminates a threat.

The only thing capable of ensuring that another Holocaust occurs never again is an end not to pacifism {as far too many wishing to launch jingoistic japes ending in horrific carnage claim} but instead the dicing of our noble species.

But how can this come to pass? Well many would say that it can not. That it is an impossibility to degrade this differences. Pure idiocy. Something of that nature can not be beyond the realms of reality when it has happened often, on a more remarkable scale, before. The history of Europe is filled with enough blood being split by Catholic upon Protestant to leaves oceans overflowing. Although pockets of this remained strong, even upon the island a few miles west of England, it now seems to be entirely at an end.

The distinction between a Catholic and Protestant has dwindled to nearly nothing. There are substantial points of Theological distinction but the tensions have eased almost totally and before the face of diversity a Christian is a Christian. This remains not enough, though. The only force capable of purging this completely is absence, and atheism is becoming increasingly dominant. Once the void exists it must be filled and division is bound to occur there but at least over ethics based upon reason there can be rational debate, which is more than can be said for the inherently immutable unsubstance of faith. It is appreciable that the Board of Deputies would not approve of this but it remains the case and while waiting for belief to die out and their post to become an irrelevance presidents of it should evade such comments.

A notable example of an alternative approach to alienating bigotry is that of Barack Obama. He has simply treated the notion that his race proving an impediment as offensive. Not to himself, though, but the American people. Who would be so limited as to judge somebody purely by half of their genetic code? Not, of course, that dividing the world into Americans and non-Americans is a total improvement but it seems to constitute a fine start.

An alternative interpretation of this is that Obama is a man in denial. There exists and insidious remnant of racial hatred, or at least mild disdain, within America and to claim otherwise is simply a lie. This is to confuse the reality which is grounded and beyond our influence and that which exists because we think it into being. “Reality is that which will not go away when you stop believing in it”, it has been said. But although “America will never elect a black president” may once have been true, and could well have been had Obama responded differently, when confronted with someone who trusts them completely and is so clearly competent the construct known as “America” may well change its collective views on race.

The success is limited but obvious: even David Duke has struggled to assail Obama and upon the lofty heights of discourse to be found at the Stormfront forum there is a thread claiming Obama’s popularity constitutes a “Cult” but far more bile aimed at Hillary. On a matter of far more importance Louisiana, by some way the last state to accept the end of segregation, voted for him by a margin of 21 points. Cynics would point out his failure in districts devoid of many blacks or suggest that misogyny simply won out over racism but then, they were also the sort that said his campaign was an impossibility from the outset. This year has thus far been one of utter misery for them as they have seen their snide predictions toppled one by sneering one. Obama has managed to not only overcome the difficulties of a mixed race candidate {and those were difficulties provided by both sides of that heritage divide} but also the power of name recognition and a campaign machine that had previously seemed impossible to so much as scratch, propelling a figure that might as well have been deemed the de facto leader. That figure is now deemed as a curious absurdity for their refusal to abandon a cause all around her know to be long lost.

Prejudices have power because that is what the expectations of humans are. They have might because they are ideas, not because they represent anything which is actually evidenced in reality. Huckabee claiming that he wasn’t there when Evolution occurred and thus is entitled not to accept it is pure folly in a way that Obama believing himself to be capable of overcoming racial boundaries simply isn’t. Evolution occurred and to deny the vast wall of evidence supporting such a statement is to deny what is in front of your very eyes. To deny that racism will impede you is different in that the very denial will alter the reality that surrounds you.

So to return to Grunwald, what error has been made? A grand hypocrisy. “The Jewish community” is a fantasy, as are all others. It exists in so much as there are those that accept the delusion of distinction, once they no longer remain neither shall the sect. To use that to imagine that no member of it will exhibit “prejudice” is to condemn yourself to as much purely by making the claim. His presumption itself is self-condemning.

For as long as he feels differently when a Jew places a cross next to the British National Party to how he would do when a Muslim, a Sikh, Satanist or atheist does we will remain divided. {I am thankful, once again, for private voting.} For as long as his fundamentally absurd organisation and those like it remain in existence we will be left in a preposterous position where the individual is denigrated in so severe a fashion that it makes collective consideration of a group of autonomous individuals seem almost reasonable:

The Jews of Britain require Deputies who will represent no one else. The Muslims of Britain require a Council that will speak for no other. The British Jews are perfectly well represented and we should listen to the views of this apparent cross-section over them individually. The British Muslims are well represented and perfectly thoroughly spoken for.

Let us not linger here, I have no concern for his feelings but I suspect that he will not alter his views. A man in his position can not afford to. Let us progress.

The way forwards is an easy one. We must rise above the notion that we are a ship divided. Humans are only led apart by their own mutual delusion. This can happen due to differences in class or race and especially owing to some sense of entitlement based upon the irrationality that is religion but when such points of division are allowed to establish into “communities” things solidify and harden. So long as there are people claiming that one rule applies to an entire section of the species that are selected purely on the grounds of their mother we will suffer from the equal absurdities of the hate that follows. The two are intrinsically linked: if a largely imaginary division is made then hatred based around it will follow.

We are presented with a unique opportunity: race is etched into our genetic code, formed by the environment provided by our empirical surroundings. It can not be altered, misconceptions can be our only targets. A community, contrastingly, serves as an environment as well but can cease to exist the moment its membership departs the collective. Without steady merging amongst races the concept of “Black” or “White” can not be dissolved and their very presence forms a barrier, with even the optimum model taking many decades. For “Jew” or “Muslim” the same is far from true. Indeed you could argue that, although orientation is inherent, much the same could be said for “Gay”. Without members there is no community. Even if enough resist the unrestricted application the extent to which the unconsenting can willingly be yoked under the grasp of artificial commune is highly limited. After this our messy merge will prove easy enough: if Feldman was willing to engage in the face of such fierce approval imagine how many might scale those shallow walls without the sharp tug of disapproval yanking at their ankles. More than enough. Humanity would be largely indistinguishable and blissfully devoid of the empty prejudices it had once been plagued by, now rendered a logistical impossibility rather than mere source of official disapproval, that the young delight in mockingly flouting.

But let us not focus purely upon the benefits to the whole of mankind, but instead the gain for each person who formerly accepted themselves as a “Member” rather than an untagged, unqualified human. Once these communities are departed they no longer bind, you are amongst humanity rather than restricted to being amongst your own type of people, your own little narrow corridor of the boundless oceans of shared humanity. Terrifying? In its way. Liberating? More than enough to compensate.

If the Board of Deputies honestly wishes to end the BNP once and for all they would cease existence as an organisation, leaving a suicide note telling their respective Muslim counterparts and so on to do the same. As it is they have higher concerns but for anyone who honestly considers ending bigotry a high priority a more radical and rational approach than the one taken at present is required. Slapping fines and prison sentences on people using nasty words in public is hardly going to eradicate the source. An end to the view of humanity as consisting of mutually exclusive “Communities” which can communicate but never truly merge and become indistinguishable will. The human propensity to spin even the sparsest of material into hatred is rendered far less threatening by the absolute superfluity of our divisions.

Only pathetic appeals to tradition stand in the path of progress.

For a frequently dull and predictable edifice The Guardian certainly has its heavy-weight moments: today both an article on the youth of our nation and the immature adult view of them was made by Rowan Williams and it seems to be some form of compensation for his Sharia argument in that he is entirely correct. The use of devices such as the Mosquito clearly constitutes indiscrinate sonic violence and of the bad, aiming to disrupt the right to free association kind rather than the good, My Bloody Valentine kind.

The actions of a few ruffians is not just cause to create entire areas of the country entirely out of bounds to the young and also no reason to make the innocent endure pain or discomfort. Collective punishment is never admirable and seems to be strikingly tolerated, or even advocated, by those beyond its effects.

Meanwhile Monbiot remains a ghastly elitist who desires a recession to combat global warming but can clearly write a damn fine strip-down of those deserving one. It has always fascinated me that those who oppose abortion so frequently also oppose any form of sexual education in schools save the one that has been persistantly demonstrated in studies to increase the problem. It seems a point blank refusal to accept reality, an outright rejection of empiricism.

But then, what else could expect from those who attempt to base policy not around evidence but the premise that an execution two thousand years ago and some unsubstantiated allegations made concerning its aftermath?

Such absurd claims are ones that I was rather not have people basing their lives around but such matters are their own affair. However I differ from Madeleine Buntings’ assertion yesterday that “religious organisations are entitled to lobby the political process as any other civic body is” in that its influence is invariably reactionary and disastrous, as seen by the prevention of reforms to faith schools, the efforts of the Catholic Church across the globe to prevent family planning and so on in the relentless litany of responses to progress that are the inevitable consequence of any organisation controlled by old men hoarding ancient lies becoming involved in contemporary government.

The role of the state is the protection of its people’s rights, not their supposed souls.

It strikes me that there still is a place for the interaction of religious leaders in influencing government but it is one that follows William’s pattern of reasoned arguments, instead of efforts to exert control using only fantastical authority. Monbiot is entirely correct in pressing home on the role of the Catholic Church in the number of abortions. Any sensible institution would decide whether they considered ending terminations or the use of contraceptives as of more importance and act accordingly but it seems that the Church is either incapable of acting rational in any way or else is guilty of a good deal of bad faith.

It is, however, perfectly possible that it is guilty of both.