A brave attempt to define British identity

You have to admire his pluck. After his controversial intervention in the veil debate last year, Leader of the Commons Jack Straw has moved on to the thorny issue of British identity, and has met with a lot of predictable criticism. Today's Guardian leader, for example, linked his speech to a new report on poverty among minority communities, seeming to suggest that it was illegitimate to even raise the identity issue until economic inequalities were sorted out - as if a sense of Britishness would follow in a deterministic way from greater prosperity.

Straw is to be applauded for setting out the context for the identity debate in unequivocal terms:

Today the most fundamental world divide is between liberal democracy and certain narrow misinterpretations of religious belief. The most frightening expression of that is a brand of terrorism that uses religion to justify its evil. Democracy is incompatible with any such identity.

Straw argues that a shared British identity must be rooted in a belief in democracy, but he suggests that espousing such an identity need not mean groups and communities giving up 'distinctive cultural attributes', such as religion.

I'm always wary when politicans try to define 'Britishness' (Gordon Brown's recent intervention was particularly dire), but I think Straw makes a bold attempt. At least his version is free from the usual royalist sentimentality, faces up to the problematic legacy of imperialism, and is grounded in the story of the progressive struggle for liberty:

That means freedom through the narrative of the Magna Carta, the civil war, the Bill of Rights, through Adam Smith and the Scottish enlightenment, the fight for votes, for the emancipation of Catholics and nonconformists, of women and of the black community, the second world war, the fight for rights for minority groups, the fight now against unbridled terror.

Straw argues that Britain can learn a lot from countries that 'have a more developed sense of citizenship, and what goes with it: notably from the United States, Canada, Australia, and those in western Europe who have had to develop the idea of citizenship to survive as nations, or indeed, simply to be nations.' The difficulty for Britain is that many of these countries, notably the US, have a written constitution and/or bill of rights as a focus for common values. Without this kind of explicit statement of what we're about as a nation, Straw's narrative is open to dispute from others who may see Britain's 'story' in very different terms. I note that David Cameron's Conservatives have recently supported the introduction of a British Bill of Rights. Trouble is - would you trust them to write it?

A different opinion on Turkish secularism

Matt Yglesias has a slightly different take on supporting secularism in Turkey (via Andrew Sullivan). He argues that Western liberals should support the moderate Islamic politics of the AKP:

If America takes the attitude that only rigid, Attaturk-style secularism is an acceptable form of political organization, then this is precisely the sort of thing that drives the view that the United States is engaging in the global persecution of Muslims and Islam.

Andrew Sullivan agrees, despite his sympathy for Turkish secularists and their worries about encroaching fundamentalism, arguing that 'finding a way to allow religious expression in the public square more flexibly than Attaturk is not a capitulation to fundamentalism. It may be the best way to head it off.'

Well yes, by all means give credit to religious parties when they espouse democracy and pluralism, but there's a slight danger here of western liberals endorsing a form of politics they would never countenance in their own countries, and thus coming over as just a little bit patronising. I still think Turkish secularists who are battling to keep religion and politics separate are the natural allies of liberals and leftists in the west and deserve our full support.

More encouraging news from the Middle East

Following yesterday's massive rally in Turkey in support of secularism, today's Guardian carries more good news from the Middle East. According to Simon Tisdall:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

Although the immediate spark for current unrest is dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad's economic record, 'opposition spokesmen say their broader objective is to bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention', writes Tisdall.

As Danny Postel's recent book made clear, Iranian reformists are often frustrated by western ignorance of their plight. Tisdall reports the views of Fariborz Raisdana, an outspoken Tehran economist and former member of the banned Association of Iranian Writers, who was recently jailed for his opinions:

"Do people in the west realise that independent trade unions are banned in Iran?" he asked. Did they know that the bus drivers and construction workers had no representation? Did they know that the students, watched all the time, were not allowed to demonstrate, that teachers' leaders who asked for salary increases had been jailed?

Women's groups seeking equal rights had been forced underground, Mr Raisdana said; the latest outrage was an offensive police campaign to enforce strict hijab dress codes on young women. Newspapers were frequently banned and academics silenced, he complained. If he and six or more fellow writers and intellectuals tried to meet in a coffee shop, they (and the shopkeeper) faced arrest.

Now, more than ever, Iran's liberals and reformists need the support of progressive forces in the west, rather than any more attempts to 'understand' the perspective of Ahmadinejad's discredited regime and the reactionary version of Islam it perpetuates.

Unaggressive secularism?

This looks encouraging.

According to the BBC, today 'hundreds of thousands of people have marched in Istanbul in defence of Turkey's secular system of government.' Apparently there's concern that if Abdullah Gul, the candidate of the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development (AK) Party, is elected president in coming elections he will not be loyal to Turkey's secular constitution, despite his protestations to the contrary. Some analysts believe his wife would be the first First Lady to wear a headscarf, 'a deeply divisive statement in Turkey'.

The BBC report adds this:

'Turkey is secular and will remain secular,' shouted demonstrators from all over the country as they waved flags and pictures of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. 'We want neither Sharia, nor a coup, but a fully democratic Turkey,' they added.

It's usually those who have direct experience of theocratic rule, or are faced with the imminent threat of it, who are most vehement in the defence of the principles of secularism. They're only too aware, from looking around at neighbouring countries, of the dangers of compromising the separation of religion and the state.

I wonder if those who complain about the apparent advance of secularism in western countries would find this kind of protest too 'dogmatic' or 'aggressive'?

Religion on the radio revisited

Further to this post, it appears that 'Thought for the Day', the regular religious slot on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, has become a battleground in the ongoing religion/secularism debate. (See here for a regular sideswipe at the platitudinous nature of contributions to the slot.) Humanists have suggested that atheists and agnostics should be given access to TFTD, alongside the usual multi-faith selection of Christian, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim etc. commentators. Jonathan Bartley, director of the progressive Christian website Ekklesia, even used a recent TFTD to support the idea.

I've never been happy with this idea, believing that the slot was anachronistic and beyond redemption, and that widening the range of speakers would simply lead to a slanging-match in which 'religion' was pitted against 'humanism' or 'atheism' in a reductive and unproductive way. Surely it would be better to have done with the whole concept and admit that thoughtful reflection on news events is better done in other formats.

However, I've changed my mind a little, after hearing historian Lisa Jardine's recent contributions to Radio 4's Sunday morning programme A Point of View. Today Jardine was discussing the French presidential election, using it as a springboard for a reflection on cultural change in Britain and France, based on personal experience of the revival of 'localism' in both countries. Last Sunday she used the publication of photographs of imprisoned sailor Faye Turney in a headscarf, as the starting-point for a powerful discussion of issues of gender and selfhood, prompted by memories that the photos evoked of uncomfortable childhood dreams about loss of identity.

You can imagine what the regular TFTD speakers would have made of this issue: we would have had either a reactionary defence of religious and cultural traditions, or an 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' attempt to 'understand' both Iranian and western attitudes. Instead, what we got from Jardine was a model of what a truly secular TFTD might sound like - and not a mention of 'religion' (or for that matter 'secularism' or any other -ism) in the whole piece. Perhaps they should give Lisa her own regular daily slot on Today and ditch all the others.

Vatican archbishop loses all sense of proportion

Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and a close ally of Pope Benedict, has reportedly equated civil unions for gay couples with suicide bombing, describing both as examples of contemporary 'evil' (via Andrew Sullivan). I'm with Andrew Sullivan on this: 'The comparison is such a ludicrously cruel, absurd and demeaning one it doesn't even rise to the level of rational debate.'

I suppose the archbishop thinks gay marriages are 'evil' because they threaten 'the family', but I find this conservative Christian sanctification of the family a bit suspect. I remember hearing John Gummer, former Tory minister and Anglican-turned-Catholic on the radio some time ago, claiming that Christ had founded two great institutions: the Church and the Family. Never mind that families existed long before Christianity and what we think of as 'the Christian family' only evolved in the Middle Ages, before which marriage wasn't even a sacrament. This familialism is rather like the reification of 'faith' and 'religion' by contemporary religious leaders that I've noted before.

Lest this story should tempt you to dismiss all Catholics as a bunch of reactionary homophobes, tune into Radio 4's Sunday Worship tomorrow, which comes from the Church of the Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro district of San Francisco and explores 'how gay people can find a place in the Christian narrative and speak of the gift of faith'. The preacher is the gay Catholic Catholic writer and theologian, Fr James Alison, whose book Faith beyond resentment: fragments Catholic and gay offers a refreshing vision of an alternative, more humane Catholicism, though I have to admit I don't quite 'get' why the work of Rene Girard, which Alison is always quoting, is supposed to be so revelatory.

OK, so after this post the other day, it may seem ironic that I'm recommending a BBC religious programme, and it may turn out to be as cringe-making as all the others, but I think the fact that it's happening at all is cause for celebration.

So that's what's wrong with Radio 1: not enough religion

'Not religious enough'. That's the verdict of some Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops on Radio 1, according to the Manchester Evening News. The bishops argue that it's 'illogical and inconsistent' that there's so little religion on the channel, given that it 'figures strongly in the output of Radio 2, 3 and 4' . Which is rather like arguing that, since there are already C of E bishops in the House of Lords, there should also be a few Catholic ones, and perhaps a smattering of other faiths too - rather than getting rid of the lot. Or like saying that since the existing blasphemy law only covers Christianity, it should be extended to other religions - rather than simply scrapped.

You'd think, given the cringe-making reach-for-the-off-switch record of Radio 4's Thought for the Day and the declining audience figures for religious TV programmes such as Songs of Praise, the bishops would be a bit more cautious about moving on to fresh territory. Their demand for more explicit religious coverage to reflect young people's 'thirst for spiritual input' conjures up some awful trendy-vicar-down-at-the-disco images, and it's good to see the progressive Christian website Ekklesia comprehensively dismissing it.

Of course, I'm not the best judge, since my Radio 1-listening days lie in the dim and distant past, when Smashy and Nicey-style DJs ruled and John Peel's late-night show was the only programme it was cool to listen to. But whatever else Radio 1 needs - a more diverse playlist, perhaps, or less reliance on 'celebrity' DJs who prefer their own prattle to playing actual music - I have to say, I really don't think it's more religion. The bishops' call (rather like Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's recent rethink on RC bishops in the Lords: see this post) is a rather bold bid to roll back the apparently 'aggressively secularist' tide - an example of 'aggressive faith-ism', perhaps?