Religion is a curious subject for me, typically i find myself lost in a world of differing opinions, where in this particular case i seem to stand alone in my beliefs. This blog has been put together in response to Baroness Warsi's claims about Religion today in the Daily Telegraph. You can read it here. I'd just add this probably will not come out at all as a coherent or persuasive argument, it is more comments about my point of view with regard to Warsi's comments.
I disagree with referring to how Religion seems to be viewed as "totalitarian" (surely choice to reject the notion of religion is the opposite of totalitarian) , I do agree that religion and a religious voice(s) should have a seat at the policy table.
Warsi's comments came in light of a the High Court ruling prayers are not lawful practice within Local Council meetings. I have no problem with prayers before a meeting of minds providing they are not forced upon people to partake in them. Providing freedom of expression and freedom of faith is maintained within this country, the practice of praying in a public meeting should perhaps be now: "arrive at the meeting five minutes early should you want to pray, before we begin at 9am." Parliament, the arena in which the UK is governed, begins each day with prayer, it is not forced upon MPs. The practice begins with the doors being open to those who wish to take part in joint prayers within the chamber. The doors are then closed as prayers take place. Once finished, the doors are opened again and the Parliamentary day proper begins.
The comments also come in light of a recent story that public sector workers are banned from wearing a Cross at work. I'd perhaps echo comments made by my former head of Sixth Form and suggest that while what you were is your choice, it should be chosen so not to offend others around you. While we can make comparisons such as "what is the difference between wearing a cross on a chain and a swastika on a chain?" I make the case that, while inevitably some will find a cross or a star of David just as offensive as a swastika, the choice of symbol you wear is yours and yours alone, and while free to wear it you should respect the environment you are in so as to protect the dignity of the wearer and those around you. However, if we live in a society where one is wholly offended by a religious symbol as to ban it, then i simply would not know what to say, put it that way.
Now, i have read many opinion and comment recently that religion and the state should not mix. However, what does this mean? Does this mean religion should hold no position in the designing of public policy? Surely the leader of a Political party and his election manifesto team should thus be atheist in order to truly separate religion and the state? Or do we go further and say that any sort of religious mind clearly bastardises polity in all dimensions, hence we ban the religious from voting altogether? (of course not i hear you cry). Given in the 2001 census over 71% of people claimed to have a religion perhaps there is the need to give religion a seat at the very least on the Kids table.
When debunking the role of religion, i get wholly uncomfortable because i ask, what are the alternatives? Take the teachings found in religion, morality, how to behave and all of this. Put simply in one camp you have people like myself who respect things that can be learnt from religious texts. In the other camp you have people who will argue that you do not have to be religious to be moral or a good citizen (by good i mean you do not break the law). Presumably in the latter camp, rather than learning it from the Bible for example, you learnt it from the development of etiquette conventions or the common law?
I would propose that the two camps (learn from religion/learn from society) have ties, namely one takes is teachings from a divine individual(s) and the other takes it teachings from divine individual(s). For the purpose of this argument, i'd suggest that doing "right" is to abide by the law of a country. In the UK (fundamentally) the law comes from statute or the common law. Statute has been developed over hundreds of years in Parliament by well to do individuals (not divine but near enough as) and by the judges (who are again are not divine at all, but hold a position in society which makes them near enough as). I hope you see what i am trying to get at, that whether society is based on religious text, or public policy and the common law, it comes regardless from a sources very distant to the common man, in either spiritual sense or socio-economic sense.
The point here is that while debunking religion seems to be the order of the day these days, i consider it grossly unfair to sideline it altogether. I've spent a long time on this blog, and i've lost my way a little bit, so i'm going to leave it here and open it up for comment and then if needs be i'll write a sequel.
(As is my policy, i like to have a picture for my blogs, and rather than choosing a symbol of religion or Baroness Warsi as my picture i went for something close to my heart, Cans of Red Bull <3 )
