BE amazed. Even outraged. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke, a former Labour Home Secretary, has joined a new cavalcade of those who believe that faith has an important role to play in British politics.
Clarke, 61, was appointed last year as Visiting Professor of Politics and Faith in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion at the University of Lancaster, and, according to today’s Telegraph, now has a new part-time job involves working with the Religion and Society Programme, a £12 million research effort to establish and define who we are and what we believe in as a nation.
Ex-politician Charles Clarke
Clarke is quoted as saying:
The traditional view on the Left is that faith is a pernicious thing and just wrong. I happen to believe that in general faith is a force for good.
And that:
I believe very strongly that faith has to be properly thought about in Britain. We have a very ill-informed debate about things like faith schools, in which people are talking out of deep prejudice about what they say is happening, when it is not actually the case.
In his inaugural lecture as Visiting Professor etc in Lancaster last March, Clarke said:
In the UK no serious assessment of education policy, community development, social care, scientific and technological change in health, counter-terrorism or constitutional reform is complete without a serious consideration of the relationships between faith and politics.
However the relationship is all too often characterised by misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Malevolence and disrespect are commonplace even amongst intelligent commentators whom one would expect to be better informed.
For example at the time of the recent visit by the Pope some of the attacks upon the Catholic Church by so-called rational humanists were ill-informed and intemperate. Much discussion of Islam is similarly unbalanced.
And:
Some contributions to debate about the existence of faith schools betray almost no understanding of the ways in which such schools work and peddle colourful images which are often utterly misleading.
What I find distressing about the conduct and language of some of those who, like myself, cannot bring themselves to believe in the existence of God, is the contempt they so often express towards those who do have faith, and the ways in which they seem to consider almost every act of believers as motivated by malevolence, evangelistic ambition or self-interest. And too often their condemnation is larded with self-satisfied arrogance and condescension.
And:
During my political life I have come across an enormous range of individuals for whom faith has been an immensely important positive motivator, and sometimes an absolutely essential support in times of difficulty. They do not deserve to be maligned and challenged in the way that they often are, or to have their own conduct and beliefs confused with those of the sectarians, extremists and obsessives who certainly do exist within every faith as amongst those of no faith.
And:
Humanists and atheists would rightly deny that philosophical beliefs such as theirs led inevitably to the secular totalitarianism of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. They should not make the similar charge that adherence to a faith leads inevitably to the Inquisition or religious intolerance of other forms.
There’s more. MUCH more. But I am far too dispirited to delve further into this misguided man’s nonsense.
Hat tip: Jeanne C.
Please note: there may be a break in service starting soon as I am in the process of changing internet provider, and have been warned that I may be off-line for a period.
I am Angry, Hateful, “Forking”, Brainless, christians…………
‘A £12 million research effort’ is, I suppose, the modern equivilent of 30 pieces of silver.
£12 million to find who we are and what we believe in as a nation! Our stupid Government wasting more money we don’t have on religious tosh. As for ‘I don’t believe but I’ll promote religion anyway’ Clarke – does this guy not see the damage religion has done and continues to do?
The idiots could of joined forces with Richard Dawkins Mori poll to find out the publics thoughts on faith, maybe just funded a larger sample of the public,but then again, a true picture is not what its about, they want an idealised portrait rather than a cruely accurate polaroid.
…they seem to consider almost every act of believers as motivated by malevolence, evangelistic ambition or self-interest.
Spot on. He obviously knows a lot more about atheists than he does about “people of faith”!
Here are the aims of just one CofE school, chosen completely at random (it was the first in the list):
http://www.copthorne.w-sussex.sch.uk/information/ethos.html
Others have almost identical aims and principles. Would you want responsibility for YOUR child’s education and personal development entrusted to such people?
I believe religion is dangerous, divisive, and just plain daft. But I am prepared to say otherwise if someone offers me a professorship and a big wodge of dosh.
I think it was on the BBC News website that I recently commented upon Baroness Warsi’s hysterical assertion that, “Britain is under threat from a rising tide of militant secularisation” by saying that I for one did not, as she claimed we all do, wish to tear down every church and erase christianity from the history of our nation (doesn’t the fact that she should be worried about our christian landscape and heritage speak volumes about her political ambition!).
However, I do find Charles Clarke’s contention that atheists should, somehow, be less strident or assertive in what they say to be ill-considered and inappropriate.
Despite what he says, the world is these days being subjected to a veritable tidal wave of blind, fascist-like adherence to the strictures of religion by people of many different faiths. The more vocal and high-profile of these want, of course, nothing more or less than their own insane and archaic beliefs to be imposed upon the rest of humanity, even if that means using violence, intimidation and coercion to achieve their ends. By their silence and apparent inability to censure these more extreme followers in their midst, the vast majority of believers (of all faiths) are, to my mind, complicit in the wrongs that they preach and wish to impose; that they give tacit support to their aims and methods; and that they lend weight in the form of sheer numbers to their wrong-doing and wrong-mindedness.
If people who have faith were content to keep their (in my view) utterly ludicrous views to themselves, then that would be their problem and a waste of no one’s time, effort and life but their own. However, they don’t. They waste no opportunity to find ways of imposing their views on others and, in particular, poisoning the minds of innocent children. And faith schools are an especially worrying development in this.
So while I sincerely agree that we atheists should not be as extreme or as militant as those we wish to oppose, I can’t help thinking that if we shy away from stating, with conviction, what we truly believe to be true and that science tells us is so, that if we lose ourselves in the ghastly belief that we must somehow offend no one (no matter how much they hate us or wish to subjugate us), and if we truly convince ourselves that religion really isn’t a threat or that its followers must be afforded some kind of reverence because their beliefs somehow give them the right to be above criticism, then we would be letting ourselves, reason and future generations down.
And for these reasons I believe that Charles Clarke has got it very, very wrong.
Having worked for several years as a supply teacher I felt the extent Christianity was part of school life depended more on the makeup of the teachers than type of school. For example, you could walk into a Church of England School and there would be no evidence of Christianity indeed a Southampton C of E school had the Koran in each classroom. On the other hand, a “normal” school that had teachers who were practicing Christian would be more inclined to reflect a Christian ethos. For example, christian hymns in assembly as opposed to humanistic ones. The Nativity as opposed to a secular Christmas production etc., However, with the National Curriculum, most schools, followed a very similar curriculum. Catholicism was more evident in Catholic Schools with statues of the virgin Mary, crosses and at least one wall display reflecting a religious theme. The vicar seemed popular by teachers, because he would supply some teachers, with non-contact time. My first teaching practice, the vicar was too scared to teach Year 6 (11 year olds) because of the bad behavior so he asked me to do it. I just watched a programme about training Roman Catholic Priests and was deeply alarmed that one trainee saw the abuse of children by Priests as simply “sinful human failings”. Serious Concerns. Many parents appear to equate faith schools with moral teaching but in reality all schools are expected to promote the “moral and spiritual welfare” of their children. (A legal requirement when I was in teaching)
This is what Dennett calls belief in belief. Why it should be considered a good thing I don’t know.
Before I retired, I had reason to observe so called “Management Consultants” and/or “Business Consultants” at work. Their sole duty was to tell their clients exactly what they wanted to hear and then disappear with truck loads of dosh, looking over their collective shoulders at the companies they had brought to their knees. (Sacking the wrong people; closing the wrong departments etc Beeching was a case in point). Now with £12M from his “client” who is just back from consultations with his boss at the Vatican together with his fellow religiots, what do you think Clarke’s report is going to look like?
Well, it’s one way of hanging on to the gravy train.
“The traditional view on the Left is that faith is a pernicious thing and just wrong. I happen to believe that in general faith is a force for good.”
There is a secular right, although it has not had the exposure of the secular left. Atheists should be glad that atheism implies one thing clearly and no more. Expanations that explain too much turn into mush. Exhibit A: “God did it.”
It takes selective sampling to hold faith as a general good. Muslim theocracies have to be ignored, for instance.
It’s not prejudice for the people who have survived faith schools and happen to know exactly what happens in them. If anyone is prejudging, it is those who would defend them based on their intuitive feeling that religion is good therefore religious instruction can only be good for children. It is just not the case. Being at a school where you are taught that condoms spread AIDS, masturbation or homosexuality will condemn you to hell or salt water and fresh water never mix… none of that is good, and to deny these things are happening is an insult and willful ignorance. They are real, they are documented and they are inevitable. Those who believe so firmly in faith schools seem perplexed that they are not being allowed to have it both ways – they want schools to have the freedom to indoctrinate but refute any allegation that this is precisely what they are doing.
Also, @barriejohn – that link you provided is frightening. Every single aim of that alleged school involves the word ‘worship’. They do kindly point out that you may withdraw your child from collective worship but there is the implication that you had better be ready to justify it, and I can see it being difficult to do so when it appears to be the sole purpose of the school. Are they not supposed to teach other things now and then? The concentration on fawning adoration to a powerful yet completely apathetic authority figure is not what I would call a healthy or balanced curriculum.
How can you take seriously anything a person with ears like Clarke’s says or writes? It’s just not possible! I know I’m being terribly ‘earist’ but looks matter. Would Christianity have taken hold like it has if Christ had ears like Clarke’s? No way.
@JohnMWhite: Hear! Hear!
@1859: Ear! Ear!
@1859 & @barriejohn! Both go in the corner and sit on the naughty step, NOW.