On Religion

Revisiting Salley Vickers' review on The Times website, I was struck by the flurry of overwhelmingly negative comments it had generated, cheering me somewhat. Only a handful showed signs of support, while most took exception to her sloppy reasoning and straw man portrayal of Dawkins. In particular, one reader highlights the absurdity of trying to imply Dawkins' arguments could lead to racism. Vickers writes: "Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting 'Jews' or 'blacks' for 'religiously inclined' and he would see why." In response, he writes: "Ah, the argument by substitution! Not very cleverly used, of course. Here's another one that makes just as much sense: If someone says "Guns are dangerous" just substitute 'Biscuits' for 'guns'. Then you can say, 'Oh, that's like saying 'Biscuits are dangerous!' How foolish!' Changing the words changes the meaning, but doesn't make the original statement invalid."

I also listened to a Today programme from a week ago, when Richard Dawkins was confronted by John Cornwell (Vickers' "deliciously wise" seraph). It was all rather funny, as Cornwell admitted his major contention with Dawkins is not theological, but rather bewilderment at how Dawkins expects to deal with believers in society when he thinks them so mistaken. The answer, of course, has been known for over two hundred years: since America's Founding Fathers signed the Constitution in 1787 and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1791. Many early American settlers had experienced religious persecution in Europe, and so embraced secularism as a means to secure religious freedom. Therefore Thomas Jefferson understood the need to build up a wall between church and state. Furthermore, the ideal protected by the First Amendment - freedom of speech - facilitates reasoned argument in public discourse, meaning ideas can be advanced irrespective of whether or not they support the status quo. Unfortunately, I can't help but feel this freedom is being undermined in the West by a certain portion of the Muslim community. A salient example would be the failure of the press in 2006 to reprint pictures of the prophet Mohammed which originally appeared in a Danish newspaper, after being faced with considerable intimidation.

With religion on my mind tonight, I enjoyed Tristram Hunt's The Protestant Revolution on BBC4. Martin Luther's translation of the Bible from Latin - the preserve of the educated elite - into German, in conjunction with its dissemination facilitated by the advent of the printing press, had huge ramifications; it was the spark that eventually set half the world ablaze with religious revolution. This empowerment of the laity, by putting scripture in their hands, enabled them to challenge religious authority, and in an age when monarchs ruled by divine right, by extension, political power. I could see a clear parallel with the internet and how with the unprecedented accessibility of colossal amounts of information, people are now able to challenge and question those who traditionally enjoyed a monopoly on certain areas of knowledge. For example, patients are now liberated to browse alternative remedies on the internet instead of relying on their GP's advice.

Being ignorant of a lot of recent British History, I found his comment on the origins of British socialism illuminating. Unapparent now because of the decline in church attendance, Hunt tells us the founders of the Labour party were in fact inspired by the egalitarian ideals of Protestantism rather than godless Marxism. This actually makes a lot of sense when you think of the character of the UK, and Labour's hope after WW2 of building a "New Jerusalem".

It certainly made me appreciate how the seeds of Martin Luther King's Liberation Theology were present in early Protestantism, with its tradition of challenging "ungodly laws". In short, the movement has allowed common people that most powerful of arguments: that God is on their side. (It's perhaps not surprising then that it has left a trail of blood.) Finally, and more prosaically, the programme also made me feel vindicated in my choice to study Early Modern History when I start at university in October.