Picadilly, Indian food, and religious freedom

Thursday, May 31

Today was a pretty good one. I got up and got my journal entry from yesterday typed up before I got showered and changed so I could leave to the meeting. I was in charge this week, and we met at Trafalgar Square below the Nelson Column, and from there we walked to the Picadilly Circus and walked around the neighborhood for a bit. The wide boulevards had been brilliantly arrayed with hanging British flags hung from wires across the streets at about fifty foot intervals, preparations for the Diamond Jubilee that would commence tomorrow and continue until Tuesday. The area is decorated enough as it is, and in our half-hour walk around the area I saw at least seven or eight different threatres showing musicals and plays like Thriller, Les Miserables, The 39 Steps, and Chariots of Fire. We wound our way back through a side street that was part of Chinatown—the entire street was lined with Chinese restaurants, and every window sported silver spits where various types of meat, chicken, and seafood hung shining with oil. It was a very mouthwatering spectacle, but I couldn't see prices and none of us were particularly in the mood for chinese. We dropped by a gigantic, five-floor bookstore that Natalie (the creative writer in the group) was extremely fond of, but after finding only a few spots to sit down inside, we decided to go sit on the steps below the statued fountain in the middle of the square. We talked about our highs and lows, and I was pleased to hear how everyone was doing—I would say it was our most cheerful meeting so far. I led a short discussion about personal organization of a field study, and although I don't think I did a great job (if I could do it again I would do it very differently...), I feel like it was still useful.

When we were finished we went a found a pretty decent Indian restaurant that had a lunch special going on for only 5 pounds. I think we surprised the rest of the customers in the restaurant by how much we talked and laughed together while we were there ;)

We all had things to do afterward, so I made my way home and got my scripture study done. I got thoroughly distracted by the news afterwards, but to be honest there are a half a million interesting things that are going on in the world.

Of greatest note was a religious conference in the United States where representatives from almost every large religion was present: Catholics, Mainline Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, and LDS. The topic being discussed was the threat to religious freedom in the public square that has been made in recent years. Most worrying have been subtle moves in government hat have threatened the validity of religious arguments as a legitimate basis for rational decision-making in the public square, an argument highlighted by a statement made by President Obama in 2009 where he asserted that noone can know with “certainty” what God asks of us. This development is especially interesting to me in light of the interview that I conducted yesterday with Richard. In the opinion of many people that he knows and interacts with there simply isn't a place for religion in the modern world. People with religious beliefs are considered old-fashioned, and many religious teachings are considered ridiculous. Those that follow them are seen as “blind followers”. Richard also spoke about prevalent negative stereotypes that exist for Pentacostals and hardliners in Christian churches, and how for many people mentioning those religions conjures up images of people speaking in tongues and writhing on the floor or refusing to read Harry Potter books because they have spells in them. Then there are the well-documented incidents of sexual abuse in the Catholic church, and Richard mentioned some people he talked to on his mission who had gone to Catholic schools when they were younger and had been beaten by the Catholic nuns. Today, they wanted nothing more to do with religion. All of these arguments and stereotypes become very convincing, especially in the face of some very convincing rhetoric from the other side about gay marriage and “fairness”, or evolution and the scientific explanation for the universe. In the wake of all this, it makes sense why religion is in decline in Europe and will most likely continue to decline in the years to come.

-Ben

Journal Entry #17 - 2/21/12

Working on Section B of my research proposal has caused me to think hard about my project this coming summer. It is one thing just to go to class, to participate, to do some minimal research and writing on a regular basis, and then to actually submit a finalized introduction to and justification for my research in London this summer. Drafting a careful, rational argument for the research I will do pushes me into a corner a little bit and forces me to come up with more valid arguments for my research than ever before. "It means gathering yourself together into a single point rather than letting yourself be dispersed everywhere into a cloud of electronic and social input," as William Deresiewicz said in a lecture given at West Point in October, 2009 (see the full speech here). However, preparing for the proposal draft has been very helpful, and I have had a lot of thoughts (mostly scattered, as usual) that I want to keep track of because they will be useful later, so I'll put a few down here:

First of all, I don't have a faculty mentor yet. However, I think I'm going to talk to my PL SC 200 teacher Ray Christensen and see if he could be mine. Dr. Christensen is so passionate and fascinated by social science research, and I think he will really be able to help me create the kind of really effective research design that will make this summer's project incredible. For instance, last week we talked about whether our "x's" in our research could be manipulated or not (i.e. randomized). I think that mine could. Because I have a hypothesis. I believe that although citizens in the United Kingdom have shown themselves to be decreasingly religious and increasingly liberal in their attitudes toward things such as the role of religion in forming public policy (74% agree or tend to a agree that religion shouldn't affect public policy according to a Ipsos MORI survey that was released last week) or whether it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion in the legal time limit (only 20% agree that it is wrong), I think that most British citizens generally feel that the decreasing religiosity of their country is hurting their country and their society. I read about a clever study that was done in the United States that sought to discover how supportive Americans really are of a Mormon President. They placed several unrelated characteristics in a list and asked the survey takers to give the number of negative characteristics on the list (without saying which ones they thought were positive). A control group was given the list without "is a mormon" or something to that effect, on the list, and the results were compared to those who were given a list that had "is a mormon" among the other characteristics. The results showed that there were significant concerns felt by many American about having a Mormon president, because the mean number of negative characteristics on the list increased when "is a Mormon" was added to the list. So, going back to my project, I think I might be able to use the same model to find out how Englanders feel about the decreasing religiosity in their country, and I could do it one of two ways. First, I could create a list of current trends or events occurring in the UK (like devolution, keeping the British pound, involvement in Syria, etc) and ask people to list the number of positive movements in the country from the list. I would have a control group that would take the survey without "decreasing religiosity" on the list, and another group with "decreasing religiosity" included. Then I would compare the results afterward. To do it the other way around, I could ask them to list the number of negative movements or events occurring in the country and perform the same experiment, with a control group and a normal group taking the survey. I think the latter would be more convincing, since if the reported number of negative movements in the country increased among those who had "decreasing religiosity" on the list, the change could be directly attributed to the negative feelings that Britons have toward the decreasing religiosity in the country. I theorize that most British citizens are aware of the positive effects that religious beliefs have in peoples lives, and although they are increasingly irreligious, most do not view the change in a positive light. Through interviews and surveys and talking to people, I hope to evaluate the various attitudes that people have toward the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. The results of the study could either validate or vilify the actions of government in the United Kingdom in defense of religious liberties and Christian values.

David Cameron's Speech on the Bible

Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech at a large religious event on December 16, 2011 celebrating the 400-year anniversary of the translation of the King James Bible. His comments on the role of Christianity in the country as a backbone of the nation's moral code is very interesting, and, by United States standards at least, extremely bold. The rest of his comments can be read here.

"The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, 'we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.' Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities these are the values we treasure. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that."
But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. 
  
Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour. 
  
I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people what we stand for and the kind of society we want to build. First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity.
Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.
Why? 
  
Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.
Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code. Let’s be clear. Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code. And there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.
And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters. Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots. The absence of any real accountability, or moral code allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society. 
  
And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values… has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper…in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes. Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”. Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles. To be confident in saying something is wrong…is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength. But we can’t fight something with nothing. 
As I’ve said if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. 
One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we’ve got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations. The same is true of religious extremism. 
  
As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope: '…in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.'
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. We need to stand up for these values. To have the confidence to say to people – this is what defines us as a society…and that to belong here is to believe in these things. I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this.
I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics. To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this. I certainly don’t object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics. Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn’t agree with something he’s right to say so. But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn’t be surprised when I respond. Also it’s legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance. I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities. But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country. The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way."

Journal Entry #6

My brother Jason sent me a couple of emails with links to and article about religious freedom that was published on the LDS church website, as well as a link to another article reporting about a Christian couple in Derby, England that was denied the opportunity to become foster parents because they would teach the children that homosexual relationships were not appropriate. They are two very thought-provoking articles, so I'll take them one at a time:

The idea that freedom of religion includes freedoms for private worship is well known. I would say that most people see the basic right of "religious freedom" to mean that they can have whatever private religious beliefs that they please and can be expected to be treated like everyone else and suffer no discrimination. They are also free to worship in whatever place and with whatever group that they choose. However, groups that seek to diminish the role of religion in the public square are quick to acknowledge these rights as the only rights guaranteed. Groups like the previously mentioned humanism.com emphasize the idea of "freedom from religion", where individuals have a right to complain against all publicly displayed religious symbols, etc, that they are forced to see that, they claim, is disrespectful of their choice not to believe. On the other hand, this article goes further to assert that "freedom of religion" includes the freedom for individuals to be publicly religious, and to allow their religious beliefs to be grounds for their public actions. Indeed, it would be impossible to insist that private religious belief is a freely granted liberty while barring all religious grounds for decision making in public positions. After all, if religion does have an affect on people, it will affect both their private and public lives.

Looking at the second article, the decision of both the local City Council and the High Court on the issue of the foster parents with traditional views was a clear denial of the "freedom of religion" as it is described above. The couple, basing their attitudes on their religious beliefs, were barred from becoming foster parents specifically for their views on homosexuality that stemmed from their private beliefs. Interestingly, this was not just a restriction made on the public display of belief; it was legal reprimand for private moral code founded upon religious principles that the couple would teach the foster children. The judgement sets a precedent for a moral test for civic privileges. The judge makes the point that it is not the "religion" that disqualified the couple from becoming respite carers, it was their moral beliefs about homosexuality that did so. Therefore, according to this seat of judges, it is alright to be religious as long as long as the the religion's traditional moral code does not contradict popular social values.

So, are all city councils and High Court's in England like that? Would many support this kind of ruling, or was this just an exception? That would be good to know.