Confrontation will not create a better society
Allan Hayes says the concept of "dialogue" was missing from Baroness Warsi's speech
I came away from last week's speech by Baroness Warsi deeply disturbed: I am even more disturbed after reading her speech to the College of Bishops. Islamophobia, bigotry and ignorance are certainly to be combated by us all, on that there can be no disagreement, and we all recognise the good work done by religious charities–it is her views on the wider issue of religion and society and her lack of recognition of the good work done by others that concern me.
We have a dynamic and effective politician who is giving the impression to the religious, particularly Muslims, that religion is under attack from the non-religious; and to the non-religious that government is pushing religion on them. This is not helping anyone.
Speaking in Leicester, she could have highlighted how we are building One Leicester, how we live together, how councillors of different beliefs work together, how we talk to one another, how the oldest secular society in the world is welcoming the vicar of an Alpha Course church and a prominent Muslim academic. She could have mentioned how we came together against the English Defence League.
The concept of "dialogue" is missing. She shows no recognition of the serious discussions that are going on between people of different beliefs, religious and non-religious, and no awareness of the amicable relations between many secularist, humanist and religious members of our society. She is all for confrontation.
She calls for us to combat bigotry and religious illiteracy and to use reason, but to her, bigotry is anti-faith bigotry and she seems not accept that secular and non-religious views need to be acknowledged and understood–it is not sufficient for religious leaders to explain their faiths better. We have to remind ourselves that she speaks not as an individual but as a minister with influence. She proclaims that her government not only "does God" but "gets God"–whatever that means. She sees herself far too much as the leader of a religious revival–this is dangerous stuff.
She is pushing us towards a society where we may have to ask what is the religion of a politician as well as of a school or a social centre–this is not a good way to go.
Where can we go? To paraphrase her: we need to build a more open, inclusive society, a more grown up-society. Could we start by reversing the Government's decision to exclude Religious Education and Collective Worship from the forthcoming curriculum review; and by having a more open discussion of its policy on faith schools?
And perhaps she could include in her history the rights to freedom of religion and for elected MPs to take their seat regardless of any religion or belief? She might find that secularism had something to do with securing these rights.
Now ... interesting as I find this piece in its own right, I probably wouldn't have added it to this blog were it not for the conversation I had with Allan on Wednesday evening, during which we discussed the pros and cons of having an occasion like this in Leicester.
Obviously, Dr Hayes has his own agenda, which is well known, given his position and prominence in Leicester life. (He is Humanist Chaplain to the present Lord Mayor, Humanist representative on the Leicester Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education and - nationally - a trustee of both the British Humanist Association and of the Sea of Faith Network.) He makes no attempt to disguise that agenda here, flying the flag, as he always does, for the cause of Secular Humanism. But I would not do him the disservice of presenting an edited version of his short piece in today's Mercury or take the risk of quoting him out of context just to further my point here. It's more interesting and effective to read it as a whole. Dr Hayes doesn't need an apologist for his views - least of all me. But I think it shows the nature of the debate over these issues in our city that we can so often stand side-by-side with those who might be assumed to be our opposites. There's much more common ground than most folk realise. And in instances like this, I keep coming back to the Equality Act 2010, which protects everyone from having religion or belief being made into a stick with which to beat us, no matter what our personal affiliations may be.
Baroness Warsi's speech was certainly high profile, being of national - even international - interest, having been picked up, published and republished by all sorts of media (print, broadcast and social) all over the world. It certainly took off among those agencies, bodies, organisations - and individuals - with an online presence promoting issues to do with culture, religion and society in general - and Islam in particular. Overlooking the muddle over just where the talk was taking place (see my blog entry for the event) it was surely to the benefit of Leicester University to host it. But why Leicester? We agreed that Leicester is probably the safest city in which to make this kind of speech (demonstrations were threatened for Baroness Warsi's appearance at the university, but in relation to spending cuts and tuition fees, not ones to do with the actual content of her speech). But Allan made the point (as have others who heard the speech - I have to remind you, faithful reader, that I did not) that she could have been making it in a vacuum. The content did not reflect anything about Leicester as a community, how Islam is seen here, how Muslims live here - how we all live here. It was perhaps analogous to the recent broadcast of The Big Questions (see my blog entry) in which the speakers and panelists were brought in from outside Leicester, spoke about the issues in ways that were disconnected from the actual life of our city, then go away at the end, leaving the viewer with the impression that they had been shown something about how we are here. It was so disconnected to Leicester that it might as well have been broadcast from TV Centre in London, or from the bottle city of Kandor for that matter. Did Baroness Warsi do any different? Did she speak on the basis that what she has concluded, largely on the basis of her own experience, holds true for everywhere- including Leicester? In speaking and going like this, with hardly even the most cursory nod to the distinctive nature of the city hosting her, the question arises of whether Baroness Warsi is really on the side of the angels.
No comments:
Post a Comment