Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The False Equation: Religion Equals Morality
In the United States, where it is almost impossible to get elected unless you profess a strong religious faith, it would have passed completely unnoticed. Not one of the hundred US senators ticks the "No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" box, for example, although 16 percent of the American population do. But it was quite remarkable in Britain.
Last Friday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron urged the Church of England to lead a revival of traditional Christian values to counter the country’s “moral collapse”.Last Friday, in Oxford, Prime Minister David Cameron declared that the United Kingdom is a Christian country “and we should not be afraid to say so.” He was speaking on the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible, so he had to say something positive about religion – but he went far beyond that.
“The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today,” he said. “Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.”
Where to start? The King James Bible was published at the start of a century in which millions of Europeans were killed in religious wars over minor differences of doctrine. Thousands of “witches” were burned at the stake during the 16th century, as were thousands of “heretics”. They have stopped doing that sort of thing in Britain now – but they’ve also stopped reading the Bible. Might there be a connection here?
Besides, what Cameron said is just not true. In last year’s British Social Attitudes Survey, conducted annually by the National Center for Social Research, only 43 percent of 4,000 British people interviewed said they were Christian, while 51 percent said they had “no religion.” Among young people, some two-thirds are non-believers.
Mind you, the official census numbers from 2001 say that 73 percent of British people identify themselves as “Christian”. However, this is probably due to a leading question on the census form. “What is your religion?” it asks, which seems to assume that you must have one – especially since it follows a section on ethnic origins, and we all have those.
So a lot of people put down Christian just because that is the ancestral religion of their family. Make the question more neutral – “Are you religious? If so, what is your religion?” –and the result would probably be very different. There were attempts to get that more neutral question onto the 2011 census form, but the churches lobbied frantically against it. They are feeling marginalized enough as it is.
Why would David Cameron proclaim the virtues of a Christian Britain that no longer exists? He is no religious fanatic; he describes himself as a “committed” but only “vaguely practicing” Christian.
You’d think that if he really believed in a God who scrutinizes his every thought and deed, and will condemn him to eternal torture in Hell if he doesn’t meet the standard of behavior required, he might be a little less vague about it all. But he doesn’t really believe that he needs religion HIMSELF; he thinks it is a necessary instrument of social control for keeping the lower orders in check.
This is a common belief among those who rule, because they confuse morality with religion. If the common folk do not fear some god (any old god will do), social discipline will collapse and the streets will run with blood. Our homes, our children, even our domestic animals will be violated. Thank god for God.
Just listen to Cameron: “The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. If we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.” The “alternative of moral neutrality”? What he means is that there cannot be moral behavior without religion – so you proles had better go on believing, or we privileged people will be in trouble.
But Cameron already lives in a post-religious country. Half its people say outright that they have no religion, two-thirds of them never attend a religious service, and a mere 8 percent go to church, mosque, synagogue or temple on a weekly basis. Yet the streets are not running with blood.
Indeed, religion may actually be bad for morality. In 2005 Paul Gregory made the case for this in a research paper in the Journal of Religion and Society entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look.”
Sociological gobbledygook, but in a statistical survey of 18 developed democracies, Gregory showed that “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, (venereal disease), teen pregnancy, and abortion.”
Even within the United States, Gregory reported, “the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest" have markedly worse crime rates and social problems than the relatively secular North-East. Of course, the deeply religious areas are also poorer, so it might just be poverty making people behave so badly. On the other hand, maybe religion causes poverty.
Whatever. The point is that David Cameron, and thousands of other politicians, religious leaders and generals in every country, are effectively saying that my children, and those of all the other millions who have no religion, are morally inferior to those who do. It is insulting and untrue.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show AllAs the saying goes. "So many Christians, so few lions".
Gwynne is my favourite Newfy. I read his work more often when I lived in Canada 30 years.
What he is exposing by this piece is that the British office of Prime Minister is egalitarian and open to politicians with barely average intelligence. I cannot imagine any predecessor saying anything this stupid.
"Now once again, Where does it rain?"
"On the plain, on the plain "
"And where's that blasted plain?"
"Near Portugal, near Portugal"
Trylon
render unto god the truth...
and unto man the illusion...
lest some first hand might get tied...
by second-hand conclusions!...
Most people who call themselves Christians do not follow the example of Christ. nor would Christ approve of their political/moral positions. Religion is just a Mickey Mouse club.
Although in all fairness, there is a portion of religious people who really do try to live as Christ and the prophets did, but they are a pathetically small minority of all religious people.
Sweden is one of the most moral country in the world, yet only a few percent of them go to church.
They are the world leaders in responsible human beings. They took in 30,000 Iraqi refugees before the U.S. took in 150. They recycle everything instead of polluting the globe. They care for the weak and poor, and sick in every way.
What's all this crap about religion and "Christian" mean in the real world? Absolutely nothing. Yet the u.s. media has alway portrayed the Swedes as a "godless" society. It really sucks.
The Swedish "socialist" economy is growing at 5% while "christian capitalist" countries are mired in corruption, debt, and back-stabbing the working class.
I was going to write something similar, but you did a better job with actual figures as well. Thank you.
I agree with everything you said about Sweden and would like to clarify on the religion part. Most atheists are actually truly spiritual by nature in Sweden. I have always wanted to be like them and have come to appreciate their language, traditions, and the way they think and act. Most USAns are ill conditioned to be rude and violent, religious or otherwise.
Thanks, Mr Dyer for a very good article....
Religion is simply a "glorified" team sport. Males of the species and races seek dominance over other species or races, through numbers and the opportunity to amaze and astound the females of the species with their power and control. Since they lack the pretty feathers of male birds.
The rest of us fall for the hollow promise of eternal salvation and the protections that come with belonging to a group. We don't experience much charity or consideration in our current lives individually, so the promise of something better in return for our current sacrifices is really attractive.
When my dog starts going to church I'll consider it. Until then, I'll seek a sunny spot in the afternoon like him, to recharge my sense oneness with the universe.
Maybe religion causes poverty, or maybe poverty causes religion. Televangelists love to prey on the middle and lower classes by promising them great abundance if they just give everything they have to the Lord--through them, of course.
Interesting remark about the fact that Christianity had given the UK a set of values and morals that had made them the great country that they are today. Me mum was from Stafford. We had a running argument about how kind the Brits were to their animals. But I had to remind her from time to time how they came to the states along with other nationalities and wiped out the population. Also in India used murderous tactics to take the power( the Raj) and did so in NZ, South Africa etc etc.. So I have been thinking of the morals and values that Christianity has imparted on such a land. For that matter on most of Europe. Please Jesus, save us from your followers.
when will people realise that religion is the bane of civilization...the sooner we rid ourselves of it ... the better...
The fantastic achievement of the age we live in, is our ability to reflect on history and the facts before us. History of religion is however, too rich and so beyond our meager capacity to comprehend. That is, not to say that we have not grown in the capacity, considering present levels of our technological and social advancements. Let me put it this way. To understand, imagine and also struggle to capture the essence of history here. Configure it as a phenomenon: that which is made a bit clearer to many when we hear that a stone is thrown into a pond of water to the amazement of those watching how it develops series of waves-like rings, getting larger and larger as they pound or splash the shores of the pond of water, or lake too in case!
That we live in an age, could be meaningfully analogized historically in this way also, taking that point when the stone is thrown into the pond before its force ripples down. We live in one of the ripples or rings, quite close to the shores...if you think deep enough about "mysteries" of the facts: before you all in the time you now live in! The distance between the ring we live from that moment when the stone forms its first ring is relatively enormous. One clear fact, is our ring is 'larger and loose': it has expanded, gathering enormous stuffs with it. The 'stuffs' are a part of particles of 'obstruction' as we enjoy a level of progress or freedom, incremental and decremental --- a paradox of our time ... that in which we are at a turning point as things flow over or spill, though I am unsure whether it could also be likened to notions of 'diminishing returns', as implied by economic science!
Progress and freedom were necessary. "Yes", but can the analogized variables: "pond and stone" be allowed to tell us more? Even physical sciences too do put these across in the terms of "nothing happening without a cause"! I know too that there are disagreements about the interpretations of both "cause and effects" contextually. Man was created free and he uses his freedom, but I am sure he is still seeking, asking and knocking: the meaningful arm of our religious reality today even if all seem chaotic. In the chaos, we now have "constructed" a God that is GENERAL: for all], and a God that is PARTICULAR: for groups, persons and or individuals ---- more a product of the "pond, stone and ripples or rings"?
When you put the "general" and the "particular", trying to make some sense of human development and history, you see the picture of our worshiping cultures, religions...and they are many; christian denominations, etc. So "religion" enters "public" and "private" spheres in an intriguing sense, unfortunately accentuating conflicts, equally as we might want to say that was not original purpose at the pond, stone and first ring level! We must be heavily perplexed living in a world that we know hands are mysteriously there, but we are unable to be sure of due to our curiosity with notion of realism and what is observable with human eyes or by humans. All in all, we are even the more perplexed by the 'love and gifts' we are unable to very well comprehend the ways they flow even when we abuse them and destroy our nature. YOU EASILY UNDERSTAND WHY ALL ARE CONFUSED, INCLUDING THE POLITICIANS AND CHURCH INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS THE SHAPES OF MORAL VALUES AND ETHICS.
This is how I try to capture what the discourse ongoing here is partly all about. It seems there is inductive and deductive problem, should we go the 'academic' way. In that case disagreement will only increase, because THE REAL GOD is so mysterious and yet extremely too simple, that we are over marveled and not just able to capture in our spoiled knowledge and joy or sorrow. My question is: IF WE REDUCE ALL TO A QUESTION OF MORALS IN OUR COMMUNITIES, STATES, SOCIETIES AND THE WORLD AT LARGE, what really are there to make people feel something ..... an act, policy, or institutional performances is wrong?
Some say these have no basis in religion and that desires for a universal belief is a negative input begging for conflicts. On these human nature: a catalyst or what is glossed over ... with severe loss of the sense of history, respect for the hands we see not and know not how they meant to direct human freedom: what we abuse to our detriment and ignorance. We are more concerned with pride than seeking the essence, understanding it and setting into practice even when we sing false tunes of moral life and ethics as the corner stones of progress in our communities, societies, states and the world at large. We have developed "democracy" as a form of government, interdependence culture of wealth and ways to make it, etc., but remain unholy in the way we apply moral practices to the workings. It is the sense of our freedom that leads us to malpractices and not God, though at this point it would not sound helpful to contextualize religion because of not wanting to offend pluralism arguments and dilemmas, solely in that it lends teachings and individualism to believers.
The problem of universal belief accentuates and yet it is because of us and what we learn, put to group practice or individualize. Religions understand the spirit and its presence in different and conflicting ways and the world is large, government institutions are many and varied. Above all, where to find any human best practice model is hard to agree on. Nevertheless, for many God and Religion mean love and serve one another, do not unto others what you would not like done to you. God and Religion signify "light" and so very appeasing! Politics can progress with it, and can do well to empower religious institutions by examples, even if those types of institutions are supposed to understand and work with the essence. All I am trying to say is a strong and better feedback is necessary and not obstruction, blames and manipulations ---- all of which leave the public more and more disillusioned and in confusion, disarray, distancing them rather than narrowing the gaps less likely to destroy the positive results of believing and being hopeful. Religion would help you manage the economy and people well, and not 'over-flog' the 'size of state' for 'sectional political interests'. Reason: because, religion and God are not sectional, but for all!
It would be nice if Pastor David Pawson could be called to lecture on selected themes of interest to the ongoing discourse. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Being religious most certainly does NOT necessarily mean a person is moral. Some of the most immoral bosses I've ever had have been steadfast churchians ... meaning that they regularly attended services at the worship center of their choice. Unfortunately, they did not practice their religion outside of the walls. They had a strong tendency to abuse their employees.
Progressive _Patriot, you raise an important point indeed! But nevertheless endeavor to remember also that like you often stumble on "false/immoral" churchians, it would be unfair to say it is not possible to stumble too over very very bad Progressive Patriots! Above all, not all who profess they belong to a sphere and claims are truly worth the claims of their spheres. Even in our 'academic' world and or life, gaps of this kind or mismatch is not strange to those witnessing what they witness and venture to detest, and wishing that relative as values are, things could be a little more better understood, well taught and put to practices. Immorality has many explanations. So too weak frames of what we learn and turn to put into practice. The good thing is immorality is curable paradoxically by truth, faith and hope if we have a better way of engaging us on them!
Yes, the idea that one is religious is not encompassing! It is a general way to very simply presume - partly as a result of perceptions and surface impression likely to hide a lot of things or be full of pretense---human psychology? In the world of humans, their politicians and employers, depending on how we grade best practice, it could be one of the reasons we find it hard to approximate and settle on a relatively agreeable good example. The statement: "Being religious most certainly does NOT necessarily mean a person is moral", is both true and false; more-so, dependent on "what being religious" involves in both general and particular senses.
The statement itself is also loose and so invites religious tensions, if effort is made to go deeper into the contexts in which MORALS are seen as a central imperative of religion: do you and the politicians love others like you love your own selves, that you do what you think also good for you for them as well? The confusion or paradox is, many religions produce or tend in different degrees to claim working for the imperatives, making confusion imminent, which hikes-up the competition hence more confusion and in the end apathy, as what both the politicians and masses capitalize on by relaxing in the thing you worry about: "immorality"!
The teaching of morality is basic in the Christian religion and exemplified by the teachings of Jesus Christ, but will you and the others make a sense of them? Morality is in Islam and teachings of its Prophet, with the knowledge that Jesus was not Prophet but the actual Son of God: very "INCLUSIVE"/"EXCLUSIVE" in nature, because of his ultimate power/love! You have moral codes in a variety of the other unnamed religions also. What have we made of these and or how are they compromised, taught and practiced for the purpose of the ultimate power, love and goodness - particles to guide human moral challenges? Philosophers have eaten the forbidden trees as most of them stepped into the sphere of new lessons -- reinterpreted over and over -- adjusting to modernity. Somewhere we have lost the chain and for this, recall the 'particles' in my first comment derived from the analogy using the "pond of water" the "casting of the stone", the "force and waves-like ripples, rings and splashes on the shores of the pond or lake"!
It will take a lot to rethink, adjust and get this as a problem area in our life on earth right. The task seems impossible. For that many call for tolerance, many a time argued confusingly. Nevertheless, this is where, if we understand religion right and choose, study right and be taught right, God and Jesus are set in the pond to many, with Jesus very special on the theme of the "Cross", which gives all we need to win and wallow in love, faith and hope, that it we wake-up truly immorality and many other problems of humans are possible to manage and overcome, especially with prayers and dedication -- for the world is not our home when we see how we come and go! Let us all be awake to this. It is what to make us conscientious, responsible and hopefully the good peoples we want to be. But it will mean us asking more about the presence of the holy spirit and how we manage and nurse it in us.
It may be helpful to consider the Christian model of tolerating the sinner but not the sin. The question immediately arises, who decides what a sin is. Here we're back to a question of ethics. And the simple answer is "do unto others" or don't do to others what you wouldn't want him or her to do to you. And this takes us into the question of sanity. If the other is a masochist, he/she might want you to punch them in the nose. But assuming we can agree on what constitutes sanity, it seems to me any sane person can distinguish between right and wrong in any given situation. And if they can't, the culture has failed that person. At some level the Nazis knew that what they were doing was wrong, at least the sane among them did. Perhaps the single most important lesson culture should teach us is: the end does not justify the means.