Faith and hate
My day yesterday was book-ended by raised voices and hatred. Both outbursts involved people of the same faith bitterly arguing with each other.
As is my wont, I awakened to the tones of the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4. The day’s controversy centred on the news that Dr Jeffrey John – the gay Anglican Dean of St Albans, who lives in a civil partnership, was being considered to become the Bishop of Southwark.
The raised voices came in a debate between two Anglican priests, in which one, Canon Chris Sugden – Executive Secretary of something called Anglican Mainstream – raised his voice in protest against the proposed appointment.
He was enraged that a priest who had indulged in an “active gay relationship” with the man whom he now enjoyed a civil partnership, was now being considered to become a Bishop. The Canon dismissed the suggestion that Dr John was now celibate. I already sensed that the discussion had veered into the priestly private life further than felt comfortable at 7.10 in the morning. But the Canon ploughed on.
He described an active homosexual, who had now become celibate, as akin to “someone entering the Cabinet having once fiddled his expenses”. The climax to the Canon’s wrath was that his fellow Canon had “never apologised” for his journey from active homosexuality to celibacy.
Last night I found myself sitting in the sanctuary of the liberal Synagogue in London’s St John’s Wood. It was a rare debate staged by the group Independent Jewish Voices, in which two liberal Rabbi’s and a Palestinian human rights lawyer debated whether human rights in Israel are in crisis.
As they spoke, one man shouted “rubbish”, another, “crap”, and yet another, “go home!” The Rabbis were shouted at with the same ferocity that greeted the contribution from the quietly spoken Palestinian woman.
As she spoke toward the end of the debate, yet another member of the almost entirely Jewish audience shouted “terrorist” and “fascist”. I interpreted this as an attack on the Palestinian. But I was reliably later informed that the shout came from a more orthodox Jewish believer and was reserved for a member of the liberal wing of the Jewish faith, sitting eight seats away from him.
Is violent verbal dispute a necessary concomitant to religious belief, whatever the faith? In what other walk of life can you expected to be bombarded by such anger?
Related posts:
There are 46 comments on this post
It’s the age old problem, Jon. they all believe their version of religion is the right one yet there can be no ‘proof’ either way. And if you believe god is in your corner, obviously the rest of the world must be wrong.
The thing that I notice about christians is that they are so selective about which parts of the bible they choose to live by.
I still can’t fathom how a faith born on love your neighbour, do unto others… and everyone is created in god’s image, can be so intolerant. And as for easier for a camel etc – tell that to the pope.
And it also beggars belief that so many jewish people who have suffered so much oppression for generations can so willingly oppress.
Imagine there’s no country
And no religion too.
If only.
As a practicing all of this pains me too. But if I’m honest I see far more examples of people of faith exploring, collaborating and meeting across differences. One example would be the evangelical churches in Birmingham community-building with their Muslim neighbours. http://www.eauk.org/idea/muslim-outreach.cfm. I think it’s worth asking why Today chooses to interview Canons Sugden and Fraser on Gay Bishops. Presumably because they know they will get a ding-dong. But that doesn’t represent the tone of the C of E’s debate, which is marked by listening and pain from the vast majority as well as anger and shouting from a few. Part of the problem is that the news media has an under-developed understanding of faith, so reverts to political models to handle discourse about religion. Hence we get a narrative of big personalities, Alpha males with conflicting propositions and competition. Most religion really isn’t like that. Nor is most of the rest of life.
Judge not, less you yourself be judged ?
“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government…”
Albert Einstein
Isn’t the distaste you feel the same distaste that the public feels for the exchanges between the government and the opposition at the despatch box?
Religious bickering is much the same as any other bickering. There is little difference between religious intolerance, and intolerance of religion.
If God doesn’t exist, what is religion? Is socialism a religion? Like Christianity it has a founding prophet in Marx, a holy book in Das Capital, disciples in the likes of Trotsky; many of its supporters have a dogmatic intolerance of disagreement – and they, like Mao & Stalin and many historical religious figures were prepared to do great evil in the name of good. Its easy to make the same case of fascism – with its prophet of Hitler and holy book of Mein Kampf.
We should be careful of what we condemn, lest we condemn human nature. Religious teachings should be viewed as separate to the actions of the religious – much as socialism cannot be judged on the history of the USSR and the Chinese communist state.
Traditional distinctions are explained as the existence of divinity or supernatural and its counter concept natural , but is divinity concerned more with psychology and individual revelation rather than an all knowing omnipotent aggregation of goodness without limits.
What is good ? what is bad? Is it just concerned with those common things that we can relate too which either gives us pleasure or makes us queasy.
But do we correlate the existence
of God as self evident because of the natural.
Why do we have an ontological argument when philosophers do not clearly understand that argument themselves?
Do we have free will all in all to excercise our individual religious preoccupations and why go along with the categories which put humans into one box or another as this is surely not free will?
If I think one thing or another and then act upon it ,will it be self destructive in that it will be incompatible with the collective will of others.?
It goes on and on but at the end of our life span we are just trace elements which will be reabsorbed into the planet again and so be part of the universe we know so little about.
>In what other walk of life can you expected to be bombarded by such anger?
Traffic warden!
Many drivers feel that only their interpretaion of acceptable parking is right.
Thanks Jon for this interesting blog & thanks especially for your quality interview with the reprehensible Mark Regrev after the Israeli Massacre of Gaza.
With regard to your observations above, my own reflections are that most cases of INVADED vs INVADERS (& their supporters) are pretty black & white. The INVADED people hate the other side because they killed & maimed their loved ones & destroyed their homes & livelihoods. The INVADERS (& their often ignorant and lemming-like supporters) hate the people they INVADED because of their just criticism which makes them feel bad, guilty or at least extremely uncomfortable about the abominations & crimes they committed. Most invasions in Modern history have been illegal, not to mention immoral. Most resistance is LEGAL in principle, if not always moral.
I state my personal opinion (as I believe this is still a free country), with no HATE; no anger (at this moment!), no Anti-Semitic ideology, simply a heart-felt belief that we are all EQUAL HUMAN children of God.
I detest verbal aggression as I do emotional, psychological and physical agression.
We all can understand anger , but do we really need the volatility and vitriole that homosexual relationships and differing faiths ignite?
Theosophy in all religions is paradoxical , yet there is a common theme which runs through all..love.
The concept of love is wide and varied and in its working out needs rationality , tolerance and sympathy as with any other aspect of life. The extremes of passion are dangerous when mishandled. The pleasures can be bountiful , however if emotionally one stays on the same plane as the highs and transubstanciates that passion into an opposing view, danger ensues.
The churches need reforming and understand that a gentle approach to affairs of the heart could solve many problems.
The sexual side of life I notice is made healthier by channel 4 ‘s programme on sex education following the news. The openess and frankness is refreshing, but lets hope it doesn’t take away the mystery of relationships and that very special individuality each couple share.
The problem all religions are facing are that some people want to change it from how it has been for hundreds of years. They want to push their agenda and as these minorities shout the loudest they want to change it to how they want it for themselves.
I say start your own dont try to takeover our religions. I say let me believe what i believe and you believe what you believe and live in peace. Dont tell me what to believe.
Jesus knew this when he said ‘by their fruits you shall know them.’ We cannot be certain about any religious claim so it behoves all of us to be humble and adult in our responses to others’ beliefs. I’m always wary of those who shout.
I view faith as a symptom and invention of humanity rather than the cause of our ills. All life is prone to compete for survival, with varying degrees of politeness and aggression. Some of the faithful are no different from adversarial politicians, trade unionists, academics and bankers.
there is nothing wrong with faith.The problem is religion and the religious Zealots that seek to control their religions
I would like all people who hold religious beliefs to be put in a great big spaceship and taken off to Heaven. On the way, they could fight and argue about they’re going to find when they get there.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, whose lives are not founded on fantasy, could remain here on the resultant happier and more peaceful planet Earth and just enjoy our one and only life that little bit more.
It is my belief that all people who are anti religious and passionate about contra religion hold a religious view themselves. Will explorer 5 do for you?
I agree Margaret. Bigotry is intolerance. There is religious bigotry. But there is also anti-religious bigotry. I too see hypocrisy.
Atheists are (sometimes) intolerant of religion, but they can’t see it because they are convinced they are correct rather than bigoted.
But, Tom, atheists don’t start wars to defend or spread the influence of atheism.
Yes they do Saltaire. Mao, Stalin. Murder by the millions in the name of Communism. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini. Murder in the millions in the name of Fascism.
Communism and Fascism are belief systems. As an atheist, you believe that God doesn’t exist. If God does not exist, religions are merely belief systems. Therefore both communism and fascism are religions.
The true problem is zealotry. And religious zealotry is just one variety.
There’s also the example of Tibet, where the Chinese didn’t only seek to claim it, but set out to destroy the religion in Tibet with a brutality that beggars description.
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” Christopher Hitchens
Let’s not forget that secularism is a form of religion and has bigotry too, with all the accompanying hatred towards, not just ‘religions’, but towards those who have religious faith. In fcat they can be even more vitriolic!
“In what other walk of life can you expected to be bombarded by such anger?”
I guess you don’t listen to “shock jock” radio phone-ins, then. Or read any blogs other than Snowblog!
I was present at the Jewish community event last night and whilst not wanting to excuse or condone the unpleasant and insulting language used by representatives of the right and left toward each other, I would say that such a debate on the civil/human rights record of Israel, taken in this context is bound to inflame passions and the level of abuse was not entirely unexpected, but shameful when it became personal.
As I understand it, and I was sitting between them, the trading of insults and name-calling you refer to was the result of an on-going dialogue of differing opinions started long before last night’s event and will, most likely, continue whenever an opportuniyu for debate takes place.
No one voice speaks for the Jewish community and opinion on Israel’s actions is deeply divided. However, the fact that the debate can and does take place internally is surely a sign of healthy democracy at work. I can’t imagine there are many religions where you get two members and three opinions but that’s what makes Judaism such a relevant and vibrant way of life.
The rest of the community presumably attended the meeting with some intent to improve their understanding, maybe resolve something. Haven’t you (as a community) given these two people license to prevent that happening? Don’t we all do this in similar situations?
I wish that the not inconsiderable number of British Jews who are against what is happening, and has happened in Gaza, and are deeply critical of the policies of successive Israeli governments ( of what is effectively being done in their name) would be more vociferous. Internal debate may be healthy, an open debate would be even healthier.
Yes, but you would surely agree that fundamentalism lurks in the Jewish faith, just as it does in all faiths, and in fact in all rigid mind-sets and concepts? The problem with fundamentalism is that debate tends to entrench it even deeper rather than alleviate it. (Of course I am not suggesting that we drop debate.) Wouldn’t all our faiths, be they secular or religious, provide a more relevant and vibrant way of life if we strove to see clearly that fundamentalism arises from hatred and exclusivity, and that our faiths and ideologies must be based on love and inclusiveness if they are not to do unconscionable harm in the world?
Not to sound too much like my mother, but raising voices and losing all trace of your sense of humour is only to be expect (and then not much tolerated) from spoiled brats.
Football fans do it to the telly, which is okay as the telly can’t talk back. Work-hard and work-louder executives do it too, but unless you are impressed by bullying bastards it won’t inspire. There are probably too many examples of people lacking in good sense, sound reason, and all patience.
I enjoy people being passionate about what they are doing or where they are. People should be content to hold beliefs that even they might think daft or mad, but bullying/badgering and just plain abusing peoples natures to force them to accept your belief when they never would freely is one of the most disgusting things one human can do to another.
I think the bottom line is that it often looks quicker and easier to shout someone down, than to try to resolve anything.
Off topic: The government says public sector redundancy payments are unsustainable and out of kilter with private sector.
I bet civil servants would settle for Fred Goodwin’s package for failure or the kind of settlement Tony Blair is enjoying.
And why should voluntary redundancies be paid more than compulsory – the former are probably jumping because they know they can get another job.
Sam, don’t try and pretend that Fred Goodwin is typical of private sector redundancy.
The terms for private sector redundancy are utterly, miserably, abjectly inferior, to the public sector even the reduced terms offered the public sector.
And no the answer isn’t to offer the same terms to private employees like me: when firms lay people off its because they are broke – clearly you’d prefer for them to go under!
And the case for incentivising redundancy with an enhanced package is obvious: on a financial level, it means the process is less drawn out, which saves money. On a personal level, as you sugges, those who are confident of alternative employment will jump at the extra cash – which means those who aren’t are more likely to keep their jobs. That is sound policy.
”Is violent verbal dispute a necessary concomitant to religious belief, whatever the faith?”- —-I think it is . Religous beliefs are so rigid , so inflexible and so full of sh## that at the slightest questioning they fall apart- so they are defended by dogmatists – they just cannot tolerate anothers views . Thankfully religion is on the decline – did it ever exist ??. Last year in a city in R.O.I. there was to be a talk on Euthasia – but the Pro Life ?? people got so vilolent that it had to be abandoned – so much for Freedom of Speech .. They are of course only pro- life for their way of Life . Ridding ones mind of religous belief is literally like throwing the chains off ones mind , and why do these people [ religous ] not clear off to this Heaven place in the sky – if its so wonderful – why not go there ??-
. I like the following quotes – sums things up fairly well
”I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. ”
Mohandas Gandhi
” If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god. ”
Napoleon Bonaparte
Sorry Jon, think you’re way off the mark here. Raised voices are the result of humans getting passionate about something. Have you never noticed this in any other arena – sport, politics, families or anywhere else where people are involved?
Everyone on the planet should be allowed to choose their sexual orientation as long as it is not towards beings that cannot defend or decide for themselves.
Your past,present and future is personal and private, as long as it is within human
decency.
The Christians see homosexuality as evil because they believe that if it were allowed then the whole planet would slowly but surely become gay. That means less children being born up until none at all which in turn means less money for the church up until none at all.
I’ll say no more…
adzmundo The Venus Project,ZM & CND
I think the unfortunate thing is that those faiths which are more moderate (eg Quakers) attract much less attention. I suppose because they don’t fit the stereotype of religious believers being exclusive and narrow-minded. My favourite definition of fundamentalism is that it is ‘taking part of the truth and calling it the whole truth’. In this way, any blanket condemnation, be it religious groups condemning others, or secularists condemning all religious people, is simply fundamentalist.
”I say let me believe what i believe and you believe what you believe and live in peace.”- Thats fine – no problem with that .
” Dont tell me what to believe.” . —-This is where a lot of the problem lies IMO – cant the religous just live their lives and leave non religous alone . Why is there this need to ” convert” those who do not have same beliefs as themselves eg missioaries in Africa , US soldiers with bible emblems on their rifles !!- .Why is it so few religous can tolerate those who disagree with them – they go to any lengths down thro the ages from the Spanish Inquistion and before it to even resorting to Violence/War
As a Christian I do feel upset when the main portrayal of our religion is anger and exclusion. Unfortunately as others said this is much more fun for the media to focus on than other aspects of the faith. A very simplistic look at the life of Christ would establish that the main commandment is to love your neighbour and there are those prominant in the religous life who clearly do not embody this and this does reflect badly on us all.
In general, however, surely this is more a question of freedom of speech. It is certainly not Christians alone who show anger and homophobia. So is this acceptable or not?
Dear Jon. I bought a 2nd hand copy of your book: Shooting History for £2 at Save the Children in Clifton in Bristol. Will look forward to reading it. Pete Miller
Very statesmanlike John – but what shows the cracks is your failure to protest when Channel 4 had Ahmadinejad to give the Christmas broadcast and showed the outrageous ‘Israel lobby’ programme. ….
Outrageous? Judge for yourself. Here’s a link to the pamphlet that followed the C4 Dispatches programme:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/inside-britains-israel-lobby-pamphlet
totally off topic – Bracelona who I think are European champions and allegedly the best club in the World ?/- cannot afford to pay their players their June wage packet . They are in the mire financially – like several UK clubs – hardly surprising seeing the crazy wages paid – maybe if one or two big names go bust – sense will prevail.
The raised voices were never the problem here in Northern Ireland- rather the lack of them. Thank God we have now found our voices and the freedom to use them…
To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely.
The powerless worship Luck and Fate.
Religion is the impotence of the human mind trying to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.
People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result.
Religion is the opium to the cleric and sigh of the oppressed
Exactly put
Looks like you wont need any reporters in the middle east soon, just give the Israel point view. Their people bombard news organisations and Governments to sack and silence people with other views, right or wrong.
All so sad.
1 God is Love – that is the only way God is named in the New Testament. I wish the bigots would stop and think about that. Perhaps God can encompass gay love as well as straight.
2 Yahweh of the Old Testament ‘spoke through’ Prophets who all called the Isrealites to task – I would that that be recalled in the debate which is joined by the Zionists.
As one who “gazes wistfully ” at religion, the bitterness exhibited by some of those leaders in The Church of England is unfathomable, and unforgivable. Have they no appreciation of what their childish and nasty bickering has on agnostics who may be searching for a faith, and the scorn it produces in atheists and other groups? They seem determined to destroy what little remains of their once proud church.