Thoughts on Liberalism and Religion

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 21^st 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.

Do We Idolise Corbyn too Much?

Jeremy Corbyn stunned the critics and the pundits (and pretty much everyone) in the election in June and denied the Tories a majority in Westminster.  The danger of Tory hubris was spelled out to Theresa May (as it was to David Cameron before her) as she squandered her 20 point lead in the polls and with it her half-functioning government.  It was an election result of limitations: not bad enough for the Tories to lose; not good enough for Labour to win.  But what’s clear is that Corbyn has secured his place as Labour leader and is beginning to set the agenda.  

His success has largely been put down to the support of young people.  According to voting data analysis by YouGov, the overwhelming majority of young people voted Labour in June.  66% of 18-19 year olds (first time voters), 62% of people aged 20-24, and 63% of people aged 25-29 all voted Labour.  Voter turnout for those aged 18-19 was 57% which was an increase - though still nothing compared to an 84% turnout for people over the age of 70, 19% of whom voted Labour.

There are ironies to Corbyn’s success amongst young people.  He is an old-fashioned socialist who has appealed to a young generation born and bred in neoliberal Britain - but maybe this is why he has done well.

For the first time in a long time, young people in this country feel like they have something to believe in: they voted for Corbyn because he gave them something to vote for.  What exactly, is difficult to define.  An ardent supporter would say ‘hope’.  A disinterested voter might simply say an alternative to the Tories.

Tuition fees seems to have been assigned as the defining issue for young voters: Corbyn hates tuition fees; young people love that.  This generalisation may or may not be true, but Labour certainly did unexpectedly well in some university cities such as Canterbury which has a student population of over 40,000.  Corbyn lured the students in by promising to immediately abolish tuition fees if elected.   

But an old mantra rings out: if it sounds too good to be true - then it probably is. Not long after the election it looked as though the shine was starting to come off with some in the Labour shadow cabinet back-tracking on this promise. 

Another irony in Corbyn’s success with the younger generation is Brexit.  We have given a resounding thumbs down to that idea, yet a thumbs up to Corbyn who cannot be described as pro-European.  His referendum campaign was seen as lacklustre: in the run up to the vote he gave the EU an uninspiring 7/10 and nearly half of Labour voters didn’t even know what the party’s position was.  Even now, Labour’s position on some Brexit issues such as membership of the single market is unclear.

Nonetheless people aged 18-30 were unfazed.  As the election came to its climax it was dominated by domestic issues and, after the Tories disastrous ‘dementia tax’, Labour had closed the gap.  Although this begs the question: is Corbyn a competent and popular PM in waiting, or is he just a means of punishing the Tories after seven years of austerity and Brexit backstabbing?

Corbyn is a survivor, that cannot be denied.  In two years he has fought and survived two leadership contests, two rounds of local elections, the EU referendum, a by-election defeat, as well as the election in June; many in his party have stabbed him in the front; the right-wing press have run a hate campaign against him.  And still he stands tall.  He is made of strong stuff and many people of all ages admire that.  He certainly comes across as having honesty and integrity. 

There is a humane quality about him that shines in comparison to the May-bot.  We see the pictures of him at his allotment and we think of our Grandpa: humble and homely. 

So if the young want to idolise Corbyn, let them.  The up and coming generation has been excluded and punished by a vacuous and cynical political elite whose legacy is leaving us worse off than our parents.  We’ll take the promises of a politician who seems to have honest goodwill, who seems to genuinely care – we have little else.

It is, however, essential that we are vigilant.  Corbyn is, after all, a politician and we must make sure he delivers what he promises; we must avoid blind faith because he says what we want to hear.  And most importantly, young peoples’ involvement in politics must be bigger than one man.  A sustained engagement in democracy from the new generation will be the thing to create real change.

_______________________________________________

This article originally appeared in The Strathclyde Telegraph: https://strathclydetelegraph.com/2017/11/18/do-we-idolise-corbyn-too-much/ 

Editor in Mischief

Let’s first take a moment to offer our congratulations to the Right Honourable George Osborne, MP for Tatton, for securing a sixth job in such a competitive market where many struggle to get a foothold and often find them themselves in low-skilled, under-payed jobs.  He’s had a hard time of it!

In May, Osborne will become the editor of The Evening Standard – a London newspaper with a circulation of nearly 1m and a readership of nearly double that.  Adding to his bursting resume which also includes a stint at a US fund management firm where he rakes in £650,000 p.a. for four days work a month.

You can’t help but feel Britain’s meritocracy has gone to the dogs when the City elite - the Ye Olde English Oxbridge grads born into rural affluence - continually monopolise the highest offices of public life.  In fact, we’ve been told he only applied for the job when friends contacted him to ask for advice with their own applications – I suspect these friendships are no longer blossoming!

I realise this post risks turning into a cynical pseudo-Marxist analysis, but the whole thing just stinks.  It’s the exact opposite of what we’re taught (at least in state schools) that getting a job, especially one as prestigious as the position of editor, is based on merit, skills, experience, etc.  I have my Journalism 1a class from first year of uni - quite literally making me more qualified to do this job than Osborne.

I don’t totally discredit Osborne’s competency for this role.  I’m sure he’ll be useful when it comes to the broad strategic direction of the paper and its finances, and I understand there’s different routes into jobs.

But my understanding of the position of editor (maybe this is now old-fashioned) is a job rooted in the fundamentals of journalism – indeed the very highest position in a news outlet.  I would be curious to know if Osborne was familiar with the news writing formula; or if he knows the best sub-editing techniques; or if he knows the essence of a good feature article; or the basic legal dilemmas faced by journalists every day.  How he can call himself an editor without even a basic knowledge of journalism (never mind practical experience) seems hard to believe.  I imagine his role at the Evening Standard will be more ceremonial, giving a seal of approval, deciding the paper’s broad direction – a manager rather than an editor.

Maybe Osborne can find a way to adapt his competencies; but his decision to stay on as an MP is incredible.  Being a member of parliament is more than a full-time job - if you’re an MP who doesn’t understand this then you are a terrible MP.  To some extent, it can be appropriate for an MP to have another job; but George Osborne’s current CV is incredulous.  He is either arrogant to the point of disbelief or totally naïve about what being the editor of a paper with a circulation of 1m will involve: it can be a 100 hour week according to some editors.  His justification for taking the job because he can ‘edit the paper in the morning and vote in the afternoon’ is a naïve attempt to reconcile the impossible and will fail to satisfy a scrupulous, distrusting public.  Maybe he’s on a zero hours contract at The Evening Standard?  Nonetheless, BBC media editor Amol Rajan was the first to break the story and his analysis makes for insightful reading.

And finally, let’s have a superficial take: a prominent governing politician is now in charge of a media outlet whose role is to inform people of the facts and hold the powerful to account when appropriate.  The conflict of interests is astounding; and at a time when public trust in the press and politicians is at an all-time low.

Objectivity is in peril.  How will The Evening Standard cover negative stories about Osborne’s government? How will it cover the Labour London mayor?  What’s in the public interest, and what the people of London need to know about, is now decided by a governing politician whose political success relies on positive publicity - and this agenda is filling the pages of newspaper with a circulation of 1m.  Surely you can see the problem here.

Indeed, many have suggested he has taken the role as a platform for vengeance after Theresa May sacked him.  Others are already calling for Osborne to resign as an MP or for this new appointment to be investigated by parliament because it could breach ministerial code.

The upper echelons of Britain’s media and politics seem to unwittingly find new ways to feed populism like a fat pig.  The manufactured caricature by the right-wing press of educated, reasonably well-off voters concerned with the consequences of decisions based on transient and vacuous populism - the ‘liberal elite’ - has been effective in detracting from the true elite: George Osborne and his ilk.