Humanist “chaplain” explains involvement in “interfaith” dialogue
The issue over representation in the National Interfaith Week is not whether humanism is or is not a religion, it is whether people with different beliefs are enabled to get to know one another and live well together. One of the principal aims of the 2009 National Interfaith Week was “to increase understanding between people of religious and non-religious belief”.
This is an important aim: the non-religious form a very significant group in Leicester, and nationally over half the adult population says that religion is not at all important in their everyday life.
It seems entirely reasonable that humanists and secularists, in helping to respond, should approach existing organisations, and in Leicester the Council of Faiths is important. It must be said, however, that in its present form, with its objectives and mission restricted by its constitution to the promotion of faiths, and membership even more restricted, it is not best suited to the wider task. Loughborough Council of Faiths is not so restricted.
… In fact the [Leicester] Secular Society is not atheist, though many of its members, particularly the humanist ones, are atheists.
The society has a long history of standing up for freedom of religion and belief.
Full letter: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/letters/Misconstruing-secular-agenda/article-2575065-detail/article.html
Allan Hayes in saying that “In fact the [Leicester] Secular Society is not atheist, though many of its members, particularly the humanist ones, are atheists.” is being his usual diplomatic conciliatory self. As a former member of Leicester Secular Society (and now an honorary life member) I can say that from my experience the majority of its members are strong atheists, although tolerant sometimes truculently of other views. There is in fact a considerable tension in most secular and humanist groups between the strongly anti-religious wing and what may be called the Sea of Faith wing (to which Allan Hayes definitely belongs — being a Trustee of the Sea of Faith organisation). As a Humanist organiser myself (Hastings Humanists) I work on the principle that we need to try to accommodate the full spectrum of humanist views, but this is not easy. Involvement in Interfaith Groups, in SACREs and in Chaplaincy are particularly difficult issues where it is impossible to reconcile both ends of the spectrum. Personally I favour the “long spoon” approach to this problem, that is to say some minimal involvement, just to ensure that humanist views are not completely ignored or unknown within these groups, but at the same time making clear our criticism or opposition.
As a Devon Humanist, I have given talks about Humanism to inter-faith groups – and will be giving a reading along with 8 faith leaders at a One World Week celebration in October.
Our position is that Inter Faith Forums should be widened to become Inter Faith and Belief Forums. We have succeeded in our county – despite resistance from some of the Anglican hierarchy which appears to have a paternalistic view that they have the duty to somehow care for other faiths. Those without faith aren’t part of their remit.
Personally, I see this as a mechanism for enhancing community cohesion and – as these Forums are often consulted by local authorities too lazy to properly analyse local needs – a way of ensuring that the 40% of us without faith are recognised.
With the Cuts likely to erode consultative processes, it’s likely that Councils will increasingly be open to cost-free self-selected ‘community leaders’. I believe that we just need to be part of these Forums to ensure we have our say.
While some councillors and local elites are religious and tend to pander to faith demands, many officers are very sympathetic and more than willing to take into account our views. Involvement with Inter Faith & Belief Forums gives us a platform we can exploit.
As another member of Leicester Secularist Society I have to agree, or even strengthen, what George Jelliss says about the membership. Apart from one well-known ‘technical’ agnostic I have yet to meet a member who is not happy to be called an atheist. While the constitution does not require atheism of members the application form does contain a series of declarations that applicants have to acknowledge they’ve read – and implicitly endorse. While defending the rights to freedom of speech and belief these also make it clear that religion is vigorously challenged.
Many of us are drawn to debates with religious people out of sport, or a vain belief that we might get some of them to see the light but there are some, like Allan, who go further and who seem to be on the same philosophical wavelength as Christian believers but just without the supernatural element. They might be labelled as post-Christian Humanists. This creates problems for those who want to engage in a more direct and active contest with the religious ideas themselves, rather than only with religious privilege. As George has said in another forum, the only reason we oppose religious privilege is because religious ideas are nonsense. (George will now correct me on that!) The problem is that it’s hard to engage with individuals on social cohesion work while at the same time trashing their beliefs.
The problems with inter-faith working are clear enough: It starts with an acknowledgement that ‘faith’ is the most valid way of defining people and thereby demotes other categorisations like class, employment status, nationality, politics, race, gender, disability, sexuality, age, etc., as less important in the arena of social cohesion. One member pointed out a couple of years ago that Leicester used to be renowned for its inter-racial council but that has now disappeared and been replaced with inter-faith working as the be all and end all of social cohesion work. That was a sad development which has allowed the Anglican Church to pose as the leading integrative force in society while simultaneously placing secularists beyond the pale.
If we are to engage in social cohesion work we must constantly contest the idea that faith is an acceptable way of categorising people – and of selecting community spokespeople. In practice that means reducing our concern with inter-faith work. A ‘long-spoon’ strategy seems like quite a good idea to me.
From the perspective of SW London Humanists, few of the people who regularly attend our meetings are on the extreme anti-religious end of the spectrum, but some are. But we all agree on the case against religious privilege. And I hope we all agree on the right to freedom of belief and practice, provided there are no adverse effects on others.
Most people enjoy a good arguement, but I’ve never come across a case where someone was convinced to drop their religious beliefs as a result of an arguement with an atheist, or the other way around. A debate with a firm believer is either just sport for both sides, or a working through of personal frustration that the other person can’t see logic.
On the other hand, it’s a fact that we live in a plural society in the UK, in a world of instant communication in which the great majority of people are religious to some degree, as they have been throughout history. So surely they key thing is:
a) To establish “red lines” , such an incitement to religious or racial hatred or terrorism, or oppression of women, or suppression of dissent.
b) To work out how to live together, which means understanding “the other”,and while not necessarily respecting their beliefs, at least respecting them as individuals and their right to hold them.
Intolerance of everything religious simply drives religious moderates (the great majority in most cases) – who in many cases share 90% of humanist values – in the direction of the extremists. Not good.
I like a good argument
and I like what Jeremy has to say. It bothers me that there doesn’t seem to be a field of inquiry for these arguments – other than philosophy which is perhaps the granddaddy of all fields of inquiry. I mean The God Delusion was written by an exceptional biologist and perhaps did a better job of mobilising atheists (myself included) than persuading anyone else. I’d like to see a book which set out all the common arguments and counter-arguments in a fairly unbiased way, in order to better understand the terrain, and perhaps hope to break new ground. Any suggestions?