Robert Sharp

Here’s an interesting video of a debate between British ex-pats Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. They discuss Barack Obama’s faith, and its role in his campaign. Sullivan thinks Obama’s approach is refreshing and necessary to break the crippling deadlock in American political discourse. Meanwhile, Hitchens thinks that the Senator’s association with the Reverend Jerimiah Wright will be his Achilles Heel.

Having consumed a lot of Sullivan’s Daily Dish recently, I am persuaded by his analysis. However, I worry that Hitchen’s cynicism will win out in the end.

I do like this talking head type of TV. Its simplicity is perfect for the Internet.

A classic multiculturalism scare story without substance, now honed to a fine art. This time, Ben Elton is the stooge:

Ben Elton has said the BBC is too “scared” to broadcast jokes about Muslims for fear of provoking radical Islamists… [he] added that the broadcaster would “let vicar gags pass but would not let imam gags pass”.

I’ve dealt with the difference between vicar gags and imam gags before (though I can’t seem to find the appropriate comment at the moment). Vicars are inherently more funny, especially to the British mind-set which sees more humour in taking the piss out of the familiar, than the exotic.

The other strand to the story is the second-guessing among well-meaning yet ultimately clueless decision makers. The story here is not “muslims can’t take a joke” or even “BBC thinks muslims can’t take a joke” but the ridiculous third degree of separation: “Ben Elton thinks that the BBC thinks that muslims can’t take a joke.” Is this what passes for discourse now?

As an aside to all this, may actually be the case that taking the piss out of minority religions could actually signify integration an acceptance, rather than intolerance.

And another thing:

Even now the Prime Minister has relented, and allowed his MPs a whip-less vote on the Embryo Research Bill, for Catholic MPs that does not necessarily mean more freedom. Instead of being whipped by the high-priests of the Labour Party, the beleaguered Catholic MPs now face being told how to vote by apparatchiks of the Vatican machine instead. Worse, the penalties for defying The Church are presumably much harsher than the opprobrium the awkward squad receive every time they rebel over a Foundation Hospital. We’re talking eternal damnation here! Some freedom.

My second point about the Embryo Research Bill controversy is one of irritation.  The issue of whether Gordon Brown should have allowed Labour MPs a free vote was portrayed in the media as a battle between the Prime Minister and the dark forces of Catholicism.  Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor vocally insisted on a whip-less vote.

In the binary world of most political reporting, the result of this was that taking moral issue with he Embryo Research Bill was seen as the preserve of Catholicism. However, it is perfectly possible for atheists to have moral objections to the Bill too. The idea that morality can only derive from revealed religion is a great meme that needs to be challenged. The idea that atheism and secularism can be equated with the cold, amoral march of science is equally bad, but its a connection that Cardinals and Popes keep making. They should be challenged on this point.

At last Gordon Brown has found his way out of the ridiculous political cul-de-sac he had wandered into with regard to this embryo legislation.  A few thoughts on the ethics and politics of the issue.

First, I think we can all agree that the debate has been clouded by hyperbole and hysteria.  The legislation as it stands does not give scientists license to create their own little Island of Dr Moreau.  As I understand it, human genetic material is not being spliced with other species to create Greek-style chimeras.  Instead, it is proposed that human DNA will be inserted into animal cells, which are free of that animal’s genetic material.

I think it is important to make the distinction between two scientific-moral considerations here. The first concerns the identity of a set of genes: whether it is morally permissible for scientists to alter that gene, and whether its identity changes when they do. The second consideration is how the gene (regardless of whether scientists have altered its sequence or not) is allowed to develop, and for how long.

A cell is made up of many things.  In addition to DNA genes there are mitochondira and other structures which allow the cell to produce energy and function properly.  But we know that it is in the DNA that the potential for life is stored.  Genes are the instructions for life, while other matter inside the cells are tools for releasing that potential.  It is only in the DNA that identity rests, and that identity will remain regardless of where it is placed. So it seems to me that the current ethical controversy falls into the second category described above.

I think the animal cell is a sort of ’surrogate’ that bears a similar relationship to the duplicating genes as a surrogate mother would to a baby that she carries.  Although a surrogate mother is essential for the development of the foetus into a baby, the instructions by which the baby grows are supplied from elsewhere.  The genetic link between the biological mother, father and child remains unchanged.  Likewise with this proposed microbiological technique:  The genetic link remains secure. Scientists are not ‘playing God’ by altering genetic material. Like surrogacy, all we are doing is allowing existing genetic material to grow in a new environment. If it can lead to medical breakthroughs in cancer treatment or Altzheimers, then it should be allowed.

Of course, “it’s just a surrogate” has moral limits too.  My stomach would turn at the thought of allowing such cells to develop into a foetus or a child, just as it would if someone were able to grow a human baby inside a non-human surrogate (say, an organgutang or a Huxley-esque vat of goo). Future ethicists may not be so squeamish.

David Cameron has been defending those parents who baptize their children in order to win a place at popular schools. Meanwhile, the hackles of some Labour MPs have been raised:

Fears that middle-class parents are adopting religion to get their children into popular schools have led some Labour MPs to call for an end to the expansion of faith schools.

The usual Labour objection over schooling is that parents can ‘buy’ better education for their offspring, either by sending them to a private school, or by moving to an expensive area with better state schools. But I don’t see how this argument works regarding faith schools, since presumbably parents of all classes can arrnage a cynical baptism, thereby gaining that edge in the competition for places.

More likely, the Labour MPs are objecting because they beleive the practice emboldens Catholicism, which in turn they believe to be a threat.

If his is the case, then they are mistaken. Although Catholicism is a threat to progressive, liberal values, it will not be strengthened through this particular ploy. In fact, quite the opposite - by inviting these pseudo-Catholics into their churches, Catholic priests dilute the fervour and reverence of their congregations. The cohesion of their community is inevitably weakened, and the religion as a whole loses power and influence.

By making silly demands on people’s spirituality, priests of all religions undermine themselves. One aetheist friend of mine signed allowed his fiance to sign a form committing their unborn children to the Catholic faith, just so they could get married in a Catholic Cathedral. And a Hindu friend of mine will ‘convert’ to Islam this year, just so certain relatives of her betrothed will attend the marriage.Yet her appreciation of the five pilliars is slight.
The social pressures which religions were able to exert over their communities many centuries ago, hardly exist in contemporary Britain. Baptising someone is no longer enough to keep them in the pews. By demanding these empty conversions, priests ask these parents and newlyweds to tell a lie, the easiest they will ever tell. No souls are secured, and the church will recieve no succour. More of it, I say.

Congratulations to Billie Piper, and Laurence Fox, married today.

Its none of my business, of course (or maybe it is), but does the Church of England not bother with the whole “no marriage for divorcees” rigmarole anymore? Or is that the sort of thing that can be waived for celebrities?

According to my Facebook profile, I am variously an anesthetist, and aesthete, and (less frequently) a non-practicing atheist. But whatever guise I choose for myself, I tend to look upon the tribulations of Dr Williams with the detachment of an outsider. I reason that because I’m not a church-goer, the possible ’schism’ over gay clergy should not really concern me.

But now I’m wondering whether that is the correct view. Looking again at the word ‘Anglican’, it occurs to me that this particular Communion of Churches might actually be considered an exporter of British ’soft power’ and influence, much like the British Council. The Church of England is still a formal branch of our state, and Anglican Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Furthermore, it is the British Prime Minister who effectively appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. So I would say that the Archbishop and his Church are formal (though obviously not democratic) representatives of our country.

If The Church represents us all, is is not reasonable for atheists, agnostics and secularists to poke their nose into its affairs? Traditionalists say that Britain is still essentially a Christian country built on Christian morals. If that is the case, and while Church of England retains its privileged position in our political system, then I would say that us non-believers have the right to interfere in its policies and rulings.

I imagine that such an interference, should it come, would require Dr Williams to take a more liberal approach to homosexuality. He should commit the Church of England to a more tolerant stance (which we suspect he favours anyway).

Some might say that by taking an approach that is too liberal, Dr Williams will only catalyze the ’schism’ in the Anglican community. Indeed, Dr Williams himself seems to hold this view. However, this is actually a very odd way of looking at The Church and at religion in general. In other situations, such as over the use of contraception or who to vote for in elections, we assume that the officers of religion hold enormous power over their flock. We assume that the pronouncements of an Ayatollah here or a Cardinal there, will inform, sway and change the values of their congregations. In a way, it is odd that we do not assume a liberal sermon from the most senior Anglican bishop would have a similar effect.

Yet, what else can inspire a better attitude to homosexuality, other than standing up to the conservatives, demonstrating that their intolerance breeds nothing but hate and harm? Its time for the Archbishop to speak up for the values of love and tolerance which Jesus stands for (regardless of his alleged divinity), and show that those values are embodied by homosexual members of the Anglican Church. He should hope and trust that the schism, when it comes, occurs (as it should) within the congregations of the conservative African Churches, rather than between Churches within the communion. Such an outcome is by no means guaranteed… but hey, that’s what Faith is for. Go for it, Rowan.

The prolific Daily Dish links to a willfully provocative art exhibition in Los Angles, entitled “Merry Titmas”. Andrew makes the point that such ‘provocative’ shows are actually pretty run-of-the-mill and lacking in real bravery.

My general rule with “brave” outsider anti-religious art is to ask if they’d do to Islam what they do routinely to Catholicism. Most don’t. Poseurs are often cowards.

This is a surprisingly immature comparison to make, given the two religions’ very different attitudes to icons and imagery. Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, makes no bones about exploiting the images of its deities. The powerful and often visceral images of Christ, and the invariably erroneous images of the Madonna and Child, are central to the Church’s propaganda. By contrast, Islam guards against such crassness by forbidding any visual depiction of Mohammed, Peace be Upon Him, in any form (be it High Art, cartoons, or the modern medium of teddy bear).

So creating a disrespectful image for one religion is not really comparable to creating a similar image for another, because the critique and satire that underpins the artist’s intent in one context, is not always applicable to another. I agree with Andrew that these artists tend to be ‘poseurs’, and in other areas, I’m sure that one can make the “would you do it for Islam?” comparison. But unfortunately, that argument doesn’t hold for icons and iconoclasm.

Every time some there is some kind of flash-point between hard-line Muslims, and the nebulous cloud of values we call “western”, someone always pops up on the 24 hour punditry circuit, asking for the UK’s “muslim community” to “do more”.

That familiar refrain has been absent in the latest news story, that of Gillian Gibbons and Mohammed the Teddy Bear. Why? Because the “muslim community” has been very quick to present a united front in favour of Mrs Gibbons. Inayat Bunglawala was a visible figure on TV, and the MCB were unequivocal in their position. Today we hear that Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi are off to visit Sudan, to attempt to secure Mrs Gibbons early release.

I do not note this merely to show that the “muslim community” in Britain is now responding appropriately. My speech-marks around the phrase highlight the problematic nature of that term, and groups such as the New Generation Network reject the idea that Mr Bunglawala and the noble peers are legitimate representatives of such a diverse and disparate group.

Rather, I’m simply interested in how their early intervention has shaped and changed the tone of the story. It is not, as it could have been, presented as more evidence of a Britain fractured by multiculturalism. Instead, is the story of a confident Britain, united in its values, dealing with a consular incident in a backward foreign land. Yes, we’ve traded one set of stereotypes for another, but it is nevertheless a welcome change to the depressing narratives of the past few years.