Secular and religious groups clash over issue of free speech
Nicky Woolf and Raf Sanchez talk to the York Jewish and Islamic Societies and the Christian Union about the role of religion and the rise of ‘secular fundamentalism’
IT APPEARS that Britain, with its soft-centre national church and traditional easy acceptance of other faiths, can no longer dodge the religious debate. Around the world, the volume, and the tempers, on both sides of the secular/religious debate are rising.
The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins dismisses the idea of religion as “the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.” The Church of England has found a new heresy in the form of “secular fundamentalism”; a force described by Guardian columnist Tobias Wilson as seeking “the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.” The central question seems to be this: what is the role of religion in a post-9/11 world of Facebook and iPods? Is it a threat to freedom of speech or its last real defender? A steady source of values and comfort in a spiritually bankrupt society, or one more lens through which to perceive divisions between yourself and others?
The University of York arguably serves as a microcosm of British society, with its own system of governance, its own radio and TV stations, its own housing, bars, theatres, and newspapers - and its own religious organisations. If the University is going to function as a microcosmic society, then those questions which are asked in wider society must be asked here, too.
The central question seems to be this: what is the role of religion in a post-9/11 world of Facebook and iPods?
Recently, the secular instincts of students’ unions have led to their clamping down on any flexing of religious muscle. The Zionism debate at the University of Leeds hit headlines when Leeds Students’ Union legislation refused to uphold Jewish Society complaints. The Christian Union at Exeter is embroiled in a High Court battle against their own SU after being suspended for expecting their members to sign a “doctrine of faith”. A spokesman for Exeter’s Christian Union justified the decision to take legal action by saying “We really feel that our fundamental freedoms of belief, association and expression are being threatened.”
Is Wilson right? Is there a movement seeking, under the guise of tolerance, to sweep religion out of public life? Rabbi Michael Treblow, Jewish Students’ Chaplain for Yorkshire and Humberside, describes this trend as “more a boy calling wolf” than a widespread conspiracy to purge Britain of religion. He points to the French ban on public displays of religion as a basis for comparison.
York Christian Union’s Evangelist Secretary, Dan Gladwell, also points to the situation in France, saying it “is a much more secular country than this. The forces there are much stronger to make the state and the secular dominant.” Ogtay Huseyni, Chair of the Islamic Society, however, gives the fear of religious purgation more credence. “Depending on who you talk to the trend nowadays may be towards a more secular society.” He goes on to identify a perceived “contradiction-in-terms” among ‘secular fundamentalists’ saying, “because a lot of these people are liberals, they uphold liberal values such as freedom of speech, but by limiting religion they are therein limiting freedom of speech, and the rights of human beings.”
If religious societies are to maintain such freedoms, there is little consensus among them as to what use to put them to. The Christian Union was the only one of the three societies to put active evangelism at the forefront of their activities, looking to “communicate to people the huge price that Jesus paid, and the opportunity that’s there for everyone to come back to him”.
Events that are shaping the debate:
- February 2004: French Parliament bans Muslim headscarves in schools
- April 2005: Association of University Teachers boycotts Israeli Universities
- September 2005: Danish Cartoons spark worldwide anger among Muslims
- January 2006: Government’s Religious Hatred Bill defeated in the Commons
Islamic Society conversely state that their role is “not going out and converting people, but to inform.” It is a role that has become increasingly important since 9/11. “Because Muslims are so much in the eye of the media, it is up to Islamic Soc to put forward Islam in a positive way.” According to Rabbi Treblow, the role of Jewish Soc is to “do Jew.” Treblow clarifies, explaining that Judaism is not only a religion but also a culture and an ethnicity and therefore that the primary responsibility of Jewish Society is to act as a social support network.
So are religious figures, who perceive their beliefs as absolute truths, justified in taking political stances? Are the potential benefits of a political system informed by religious morals outweighed by the risk that such beliefs could be abused for political gain? All three religious groups agree that there is a political aspect to religion, but while J-Soc and Islamic Soc take political stances as student organisations, the Christian Union says that “it’s safe to say that political activism is not one of our aims.” For both the Islamic and Jewish Societies, it is much more clear cut – there are political battles which members of the faith are obligated to fight.
Amongst both Jews and Muslims, the Israel-Palestine conflict goes to the root of their faith. For Huseyni it is a reminder of the need to maintain solidarity with Muslims all over the world. He speaks of the human tragedy unfolding on the West Bank and in Gaza, pointing out that “it is human beings that are dying every day and they’re no different from our families.” For Treblow, the survival of the state of Israel is “part and parcel of Jewish identity.”
It would seem that the loud and angry war between secularists and those of faith has only one logical outcome: mutually assured destruction. Religious groups and secularists will lose out in equal measure if they attempt to curb the free speech of others. Religion will never be talked out of existence, regardless of Richard Dawkins’s eloquence. Nor is there much danger of religious hysteria sweeping through Britain on any real scale. The true danger to both is abreakdown in the principle of the value of free speech. The moment that dam cracks, secular and religious groups will have a very real cause for alarm.
