Three cheers for fundamentalists! Every non-believer has seen over the last few years, the growing sense of frustration within the fundamentalist community. Atheists, Humanists and a myriad of other sub-human monsters have been crawling out of the walls and demanding that religionists pack up their special privileges and go home. The push for a secular society has not been as strong in decades and non-believers have never been as vocal. Although they invariably make us angry, these fundamentalists don’t really do us any harm and are, I propose, probably one of our greatest assets.
The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.
The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.
The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.
They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.
That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.
The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.
Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies
The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.
The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.
The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.
They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.
That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.
The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.
Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies
0 comments:
Post a Comment