Monday, November 16, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Denham's misplaced 'faith group' faith

by AC Grayling - guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/16/john-denham-faith-groups

John Denham, our government's minister for communities, is going to have an advisory body made up of representatives of "faith" groups, further eroding the de facto secularism that has kept our society relatively stable and collegial, at least until recently. He pours scorn on secularists, which means the majority of the population who, whatever their faith or lack of it, are secularist in the sense that they do not wish religion, still less any one particular religion, to be in the driving seat of policymaking in this country.

Apart from the fact that the "faith groups" represent less than 10% of the population – namely, the less-than-10% who go to church, mosque, temple or synagogue regularly each week, and therefore represent no one but themselves and a tiny minority – what does Denham think he is going to learn from them? Are their points of view not extremely well-known and entirely predictable?

Evidently, Denham does not know enough about this. Let us therefore ask him a few questions about what he expects to hear from the faith groups on such matters as community cohesion, discrimination, the rule of law, the treatment of gay people, the rights of women – on all of which, of course, the faith groups have spectacularly marvellous attitudes calculated to maximise peace and inclusion across society.

So, Mr Denham, on community cohesion: do you take into account the fact that the major faiths officially blaspheme one another? For Christians, Muslims are followers of false prophets, and for Muslims, Christians repudiate the teachings of the Prophet. They once went to war with one another repeatedly and bloodily for centuries over these differences. Now – for the time being – they sit at the government's table side by side, their hands eagerly stretched out for our tax money for their faith-based schools and their "community initiatives".
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/16/john-denham-faith-groups

Posted: Monday, November 16, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 32 of 32 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #432261 by Lucas on November 16, 2009 at 6:14 pm

So sad that this even has to be explained, but thank you for doing so. I don't see it going anywhere really, but we can't just let it slide.

Other Comments by Lucas

2. Comment #432262 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm

I wonder if he's sucking up to Muslims as a way to protect himself from getting blown up by Muslim extremists?

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

3. Comment #432264 by chuckgoecke on November 16, 2009 at 6:19 pm

This a-hole should be sacked!

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

4. Comment #432267 by Bormotun on November 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm

Usually I just read the articles but this time I can't resist to applaud the clarity and logic of the arguments.

In my native Russia, religion is now winning over vast numbers of people, and is finally to be introduced to schools (after a long struggle). This is a shame but it has its explanation in the history. For most of the XX century religious views (as any views) were suppressed in the communist USSR, and now people are anxious to rediscover their cultural roots, their past.

But in Britain? The very secular, very stable society, not disturbed by revolutions, enjoying the freedom of thought at all times... what is happening? Why is secularism there suddenly seems to be at the defence line?!

Other Comments by Bormotun

5. Comment #432269 by F_A_F on November 16, 2009 at 6:41 pm

As a devout Pastafarian, I can't wait until we receive our invite to this group. For too long, we have suffered with pasta sauces that barely reach the level of "edible". The recent furore regarding Jamie Oliver's pasta sauces only goes to show the true level of feeling in the community regarding pasta sauce, and I hope that the inclusion of Pastafarians in this group will go some way to presenting our concerns to the govt.

Other Comments by F_A_F

6. Comment #432270 by Mr Blue Sky on November 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Spot on AC, if only I were so eloquent.

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

7. Comment #432273 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 16, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Let us therefore ask him a few questions about what he expects to hear from the faith groups on such matters as community cohesion, discrimination, the rule of law, the treatment of gay people, the rights of women – on all of which, of course, the faith groups have spectacularly marvellous attitudes calculated to maximise peace and inclusion across society.

Irony: WIN
Sarcasm: WIN
Stating the bleedin' obvious: EPIC WIN

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

8. Comment #432291 by fsm1965 on November 16, 2009 at 7:48 pm

AC pwned Denham

Other Comments by fsm1965

9. Comment #432297 by Stonyground on November 16, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Excellent post, concise and to the point. Of course without religion we would just be one community and wouldn't need a "Minister for Communities" and then Mr. Denham would be out of a job.

Someone on the original comment thread mentioned the contrast between consulting faith groups and sacking scientists who point out that government policy fails to coincide with reality. Hardly surprising that they screw up everything that they do in the circumstances is it?

Other Comments by Stonyground

10. Comment #432303 by Mr DArcy on November 16, 2009 at 8:26 pm

In the 1970s, trade union leaders often met with Labour Party ministers or even the prime minister. We were told they ate beer and sandwiches. Catering for this lot will be a logistical nightmare. No ham or pork, no alcohol, no shellfish, kosher for the Jews, halal for the muslims, no beef if any Hindus are invited. The CoEs will probably insist on fair trade coffee or tea and organic bread.

I'm not sure what Jedis don't eat or for that matter what they do eat. Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters all round? (Apart from the Muslims, who can feel suitably offended.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boo9llCz4CM

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

11. Comment #432305 by alan baylis on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 pm

An excellent article by A.C. Grayling highlighting all the salient points as he usually does.

The good news is that this lot are on the way out. Unfortunately, this is cancelled out by the other lot showing they are unlikely to be any more rational in these matters.

One comment on the Grauniad won the thread imo.

bluejewel

16 Nov 2009, 3:48PM

Does anyone know who/how many are on this ludicrous advisory panel?

If the make up is to democratically reflect census figures then if there are, say, 20, it should go approximatelysomething like this:-

14 christians
5 non religious
half a muslim and an assortment of various midgets

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

Other Comments by alan baylis

12. Comment #432318 by mjwemdee on November 16, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Bravo Professor Grayling! Not only cogent and on-target, but a brilliant display of literary sarcasm which - in this case - is wholly justified.

Shame on Denham. How can someone so utterly clueless end up being given such a post in government?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

13. Comment #432319 by mrmelbourne on November 16, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Bravo Mr Grayling. I can't wait to see him in person at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne next year. Just got my tickets this week!

Other Comments by mrmelbourne

14. Comment #432322 by Stafford Gordon on November 16, 2009 at 10:24 pm

A Grayling grilling!

Our present crop of politicians are hot on followship; sniff the air sus out the votes and suck up; dogmatists recognize this and play ball.

Both gangs are opportunistic to the marrow of their bones; dangerous times!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

15. Comment #432325 by j.mills on November 16, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Why does Denham divide society into constituencies based on religion? Why not have representatives for different hair-colours? Or football allegiance? Or preferred breakfast cereal? Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of hair-colour, football support and breakfast cereal at their peril. Redheads and blondes, fans of Manchester City and Weetabix-eaters can contribute significant insights on key issues, such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change.

...Thank you, ACG, for putting on record the stone-blind stupidity of this government's adoration of groundless belief. For what good it will do.

Other Comments by j.mills

16. Comment #432349 by lackofgravitas on November 17, 2009 at 12:02 am

Great article, he doesn't pull any punches does he?

Having said that, I see and hear lots of complaints, but little being actually done. It's high time we had constitutional reform in this country. Writing a constitution would be a good start. Then we can at least get the (unelected) bishops out of parliament.

"So, Mr Lion, what do you think is the best way to preserve the population of wildebeest?"

"Oh, well, the best thing is to leave us in charge."

"Right you are then. Here are the keys, I'll just get my coat."

Other Comments by lackofgravitas

17. Comment #432377 by Border Collie on November 17, 2009 at 2:08 am

Lightning slashes the Spring wind ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

18. Comment #432380 by Enlightenme.. on November 17, 2009 at 3:26 am

"If the make up is to democratically reflect census figures then if there are, say, 20, it should go approximatelysomething like this:-

14 christians
5 non religious
half a muslim and an assortment of various midgets"

Well you can't have half a Muslim can you.
The smallest group possible would need at least one to represent scientology or kabbalah.

This means the advisory panel is going to number well into the thousands, of which - going by the last census - some hundreds are going to be klingons, wiccans or Jedi.

The meetings are going to have something of the atmosphere of the bar in Star Wars.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

19. Comment #432417 by WilliamSatire on November 17, 2009 at 8:42 am

Don't forget Peter Serafinowicz's Tauvuism! Quite possibly the best religion ever! Say 'hebbo' to Tauvuism: http://www.tarvu.com/

Other Comments by WilliamSatire

20. Comment #432425 by Follow Peter Egan on November 17, 2009 at 10:04 am

I love you AC!

Thank you for being in a position of authority and publicly writing about this, and bringing it to the attention of a wide readership. Excellent job, sir.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

21. Comment #432441 by Half_Cut on November 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Remember John Denham describes himself as a Secular Humanist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/20/denham-morality-church-leaders

Other Comments by Half_Cut

22. Comment #432448 by irate_atheist on November 17, 2009 at 1:36 pm

21. Comment #432441 by Half_Cut -

Remember John Denham describes himself as a Secular Humanist

All the more reason to criticize his asshattery in this matter.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

23. Comment #432470 by Robocop on November 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm

A wise politician listens to all of his/her significant constituencies. Despite Grayling's (typical and typically misplaced) hysteria, that's all that's promised to the faith groups. Grayling is all worked up over "faith-based courts" and "giv[ing] them some of our tax money" when, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that any change in this regard is in the offing.

The quote in the linked article from Terry Sanderson, said to be president of the National Secular Society, makes it clear just how much silliness is afoot:

"We shouldn't have unelected people influencing decision making."

Yeah, like economists, and scientists and, well, voters....

Laughable, but also (sadly) typical.

Other Comments by Robocop

24. Comment #432488 by Peacebeuponme on November 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

Christ some of the people who post on the Guardian site are cunts, aren't they?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

25. Comment #432489 by Peacebeuponme on November 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Irate

asshattery

Is that like a cattery?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

26. Comment #433400 by Half_Cut on November 20, 2009 at 9:25 am

John Denham replies to AC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/18/faith-groups-communities-denham

Other Comments by Half_Cut

27. Comment #433407 by Mark Jones on November 20, 2009 at 10:03 am

Comment #433400 by Half_Cut
John Denham says:

I'm a secular humanist and have been all my adult life. As communities secretary I am formally responsible for the government's engagement with faith communities. Lacking some depth of knowledge I set about recruiting a panel of advisors (retained on an expenses-only basis) to advise me on relations with these communities. For the simple pragmatic step of seeking informed advice I have, apparently, "eroded the de facto secularism that has kept our society relatively stable and collegial". Of course I've done nothing of the sort.

This *sounds* like he's just asking faith groups about faith groups. I cannot see any problem in that, as long as that is *all* it means.

In his speech he said:

When I say I am a secular humanist I have to admit that it would take a very skilled theological surgeon to separate my secular beliefs today from the values I absorbed from my upbringing in the Church of England. Values, moral precepts, my sense of the natural calendar and my appreciation of music all owe something to those roots.

I really think this sort of language is a mistake, and leads a lot of people to grant too much respect to the various faiths. A much more accurate statement would be:

As a secular humanist I have to say that it would take a very skilled theological surgeon to separate the Church's worthwhile beliefs from the values that all humankind have developed. Values, moral precepts, my sense of the natural calendar and my appreciation of music all owe something to *those* roots.

Back to the article he's written in response to Grayling, in which he says:

On these issues, and others including climate change and the values of our economy, faiths have views and values that deserve a hearing.

The question is, do they deserve a *privileged* hearing? A secularist says no; what does Denham say? By using terms such as 'respect for faith' it sounds like yes to me.

Incidentally, as a side note Denham also says:

...to defend the responsibility of government to reflect a majority view point even when this is uncomfortable for some believers.

Government doesn't necessarily reflect the majority view point, otherwise the UK would have capital punishment. Governments need to make policy taking on board the best advice *as well*. That is also why allowing faith groups any privilege in the formation of policy is wrong.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

28. Comment #433413 by hungarianelephant on November 20, 2009 at 10:56 am

As communities secretary I am formally responsible for the government's engagement with faith communities.

I invite the Honourable Members to discard all the weird phraseology they have heard emanating from politicians in the last 10 or 20 years, and consider what the hell this is supposed to mean.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

29. Comment #433414 by irate_atheist on November 20, 2009 at 10:57 am

26. Comment #433400 by Half_Cut -

I have had to come to the conclusion that Denham is a bloody fool. And a dangerous fool, at that.

The more I look at humanity, the more I despair at it's collective capacity for ignorance, self-delusion and self-destruction.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #433415 by irate_atheist on November 20, 2009 at 10:59 am

28. Comment #433413 by hungarianelephant -

I think it means 'sucking up to lunatics in the hope they'll vote for me'.

Plus, these people on his panel. Who the fuck elected or chose them?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

31. Comment #433417 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 11:18 am

efalump

weird phraseology

Private Eye has been justly mocking the use of the word 'community'.

We know have things like "this has sent shockwaves around the egg-sandwich community", as though this or that group meet and think as one.

Mind you, the 'Communities' part of Government does have a proper and useful role in respect of local government.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #433447 by hungarianelephant on November 20, 2009 at 1:19 pm

30. Comment #433415 by irate_atheist

Plus, these people on his panel. Who the fuck elected or chose them?

Do you really need us to answer that?

31. Comment #433417 by Peacebeuponme

Private Eye has been justly mocking the use of the word 'community'.

We know have things like "this has sent shockwaves around the egg-sandwich community", as though this or that group meet and think as one.

I'm just as troubled by the concept of a "faith community". I have never encountered one of these. A church or, moreso, a mosque might be the focal point of a community, but it does not follow that the faith is the defining bit of the community. The club's primary function might well be as a socialising point. Faith spokespeople and their apologists are frequently at some pains to point this out. This appears to me to be smuggling in some sort of implied authority for the "leaders" under a bit of linguistic ambiguity.

And what does "engaging" mean? Does it mean having a little chat? Or does it imply some sort of two-way give and take? Of course it doesn't.

Anyone who has ever been in a negotiation knows how frustrating and pointless it is when the guys on the other side of the table don't have any authority to make decisions. And what a useful tactic it is to be able to suck through your teeth and attribute thoughts to an absent principal - "I'll have to talk to my boss/client about that but he won't like it."

Community leaders in the sense we know them are not "leaders" in a meaningful sense. They cannot offer anything because they cannot guarantee to get their own people onside. All you can do is listen to what they have to say - which in the case of the usual self-appointed, self-righteous assholes is a laundry list of demands which suit their own personal position.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

Reload Comments | Back to Top