Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has recently claimed that liberals who are not
tolerant of religious views are illiberal and that liberalism had “eaten
itself”. He went on to say (a little
bizarrely) that liberalism is only liberal as long as it is grounded in
Christianity – the opinion piece on The Guardian can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/liberalism-eaten-itself-british-religious-liberty-christianity-tim-farron
In truth, the Guardian opinion piece is an edited version of
a longer
speech he gave to a Christian think-tank called Theos and removes much of the context, but nonetheless I found
myself disagreeing with him over some of the main points even within the
context of the entire speech. Especially
the claims that liberalism has “eaten itself” (which he convolutedly explains
but I take to mean that liberalism has triumphed in becoming the dominant
ideology but in its success has abandoned its founding principle - freedom of
religion – so its success is meaningless).
I’ll set out my stall: I'm a liberal and I’m also an
atheist. I believe, that broadly across the world, religion
does more harm than good and freedom from religion is fast becoming more
desirable than freedom of religion.
Shortly after Tim Farron was elected leader of the party in 2015 (and
after I voted for him) I challenged him on
his views on gay sex.
I’m glad I voted for him he was an outstanding leader.
I enjoyed reading his full speech and I really admire the
strength of devotion he has to his faith. Sometimes, I wish I could have the
unwavering trust and hope of the religious believer but I am just not wired
that way. I keep an open mind and I’m
cautiously optimistic; but I’m critical, I demand evidence, and I try to see
the world as it is not how I’d like it to be.
It was thought provoking to read Tim’s vehement discussion
of what faith means to him, but it is something that is completely alien to me. His claims about Christianity representing
the truth may be his reality, but I find it baffling and not at all convincing. He spoke a little about atheism and
secularism and I could write hundreds of words of analysis disagreeing with
him.
But despite this, I think that our own personal ideas of
liberalism are almost identical: freedom, equality, rule of law.
The difference is that Tim’s liberalism originates from his
devotion to Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ; mine comes from the
belief that individuals are sovereign and should be empowered to be the best
they can be, and to lift others up too. Maybe my concept of liberalism is rooted
in secularism, I’ve never really thought about it like that before – it’s
simply how I’ve come to see world.
Religious faith is an issue where we can agree to disagree. But for Tim to now call out liberalism
itself, at a time when it is under threat from some real bad guys around the
world, sounds like sour grapes.
Many of Tim’s assessments of liberalism are correct: it
fosters debate so can mean giving and taking criticism and sometimes offence;
but, Tim – this applies to your beliefs and world views as well.
Challenging Tim Farron’s (or any other religious individual)
position with regards to gay sex doesn’t mean you’re intolerant or illiberal,
it means you’re participating in a debate in a democracy; and if religious doctrines
come under attack then that’s part and parcel with living in a liberal
democracy – no beliefs or ideas are protected.
Ultimately, there’s a missing link in Farron’s analysis of
the state of liberalism and faith: times change - religion is on the way out. More than half the UK identifies as being
non-religious and there are several western democracies where religion is on
course to become
extinct. Liberalism is an old
ideology, it’s important to take into account the context in which it exists,
and that context is different now from the time of the nonconformist
evangelical Christians Tim claims founded British liberalism. It is one thing to extemporise on the state
of Christianity and liberalism to an audience at an event hosted by a Christian
think-tank, but the reality in broader society is very different.
Liberalism's religious history does not mean it has a
religious present, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee it a religious future. In my opinion, liberalism hasn’t changed and
it hasn’t become any less tolerant; rather the context in which it now
exists is increasingly less religious which has resulted in Tim’s dilemma. Tim Farron was challenged on his views on gay
sex not out of intolerance but because a nonreligious society can’t comprehend
such a devout commitment to religious doctrine – especially when it could be so
easily interpreted (and as it ended up being spun by the media) as a liberal leader
who wasn’t actually very liberal. Of
course, as in any debate (especially with social media), there are those who
will be intolerant or nasty, but you can’t conclude from these individuals that
the entire ideology of liberalism has lost its way.
More broadly, Farron’s dilemma is a screenshot of a 21st
century ideological collision: the remnants of a religious and conservative
country facing the new reality of non-religion and the growing call for
secularisation that will surely follow. The result is religious people feeling
victimised because their beliefs no longer command authority or enjoy the
obscene privilege they once had in British life - especially that of thinking
they have an infallible claim to morality and understanding the human condition.
In its moderate forms religious belief gives fulfilment to
so many people. However, religion is
routinely used as weapon to crush vulnerable or minority groups, historically
in this country, and also in the present day in countries around the
world.
Tim goes on to argue that this country doesn’t have shared
values, but I think a better phrase is that this country doesn’t have a shared
ideology. Peace, tolerance,
individuality, respect for life – these values, irrespective of faith, are
shared by the majority of people in the UK: it’s our collective psyche that
liberal Britain has bestowed upon us.
Liberalism will continue to be liberal even as religion
declines. And if you’re an atheist like
me, you would argue that non-religion creates an even better foundation for
liberal values as people are free from dogma, conformism, and can think as
individuals.
Liberalism hasn’t “eaten itself”. It’s all part of the ongoing cycle of
agreeing to disagree, of living to let live.
There’s no need for liberals to take aim at each other; we’re wasting
shots while far-right
authoritarianism is left to thrive so contently.
