The Politics of Religion

Here's an interesting study from Demos (a British thinktank) looking at the correlation between religion and political persuasion...  http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/faithfulcitizens

It concludes that (1) "religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, (and) donate more to charity" and (2) "religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious."

This is surprising; religion has long suffered under the stigma of conservatism, the illegitimate authority of religious bodies being exampled as dogmatic, restrictive and stifling of free thought or action. However these conclusions seem to refute such a perception. Conclusion (1) indicates a tendency towards welfare more akin with left-wing socialism, whereas Conclusion (2) creates a image of liberal progressiveness, tolerance and idealism.

Upon reflection, it is not hard to see how Conclusion (1) is supported by scripture and the general attitudes of society. Most Labour PMs have identified themselves as Christian (this is not insinuating that Conservatives have not) and the most Christian constituent nation of the UK (Scotland), is also the most Labour-supporting. Teachings of most religious organisations include instructions to be charitable, such as the zakah of Islam and Christ blessing 'he who considers the poor'. And let's not forget that in all stages of socialism but the final there is the necessity for a strong leadership to dictate wealth redistribution and plan the economy. Therefore it does not seem a monumental absurdity to reconcile socialism with Christianity.

However, with Conclusion (2), I struggle to find the liberal values of equality for all, intellectual emancipation and liberty from authority in any form of religious pursuit. The condemnation of homosexual and female equality by the vast majority of religious doctrines are yet more examples of intolerance on the part of the monotheistic ideologies and those who purport to interpret their holy texts.

This struggle to understand how such bigotry could be labelled liberal precipitated my desire to look closer at the methodology behind Demos' report... and surprise, surprise, I unearthed some horrendous discrepancies. Essentially they asked a multiple choice question with 4 options to answer (p58) but then lumped those respondents who chose either Option 2 or Option 3 into the same group (pluralist) to analyse the results, thereby reducing four categories to three to interpret. They consequently feigned surprise that pluralists returned most results, evidently hoping that the readership would overlook their blatant search for such a skew. This bias is why they produced the correlation that they did, as the pluralist group is undoubtedly both liberal AND religious, and therefore raises several questions concerning the actualities of their claimed independence and even their fitness to practice.

God, I love it when my gut feeling is validated...

Gay Marriage

Gonna start this one with a pretty shocking revelation... you ready? Here goes...

I LIKE the fact that Cardinal O'Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has condemned gay marriage proposals as a 'grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right'.
(Full story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

That way, when someone asks why I dislike the Catholic Church, I don't have to delve into my extensive list of papal atrocities, historical barbarisms, scientific repressions, judgements of questionable morality, or divisive actions.

It is a lot easier to point to its outdated, prejudicial, discriminatory, inflammatory, bigoted and homophobic views.

How an organisation can claim moral authority yet discriminate against certain factions of society, based on unchangeable facets of themselves, is unknown to me. How O'Brien can even reference the slave trade (see article) in such a debate, but fail to see how immoral and untenable his position is, is beyond staggering.

A cynic may argue that such statements as his are designed to provoke, that the Church plays (for want of a better phrase) devil's advocate in order to still seem relevant in today's world. They say any media coverage is good media coverage, indeed it has sparked this thread of thought. Therefore, a cynic may conclude that religious leaders do not believe what they are saying, merely that they are expected to say it.

An optimist would hope this is the case, however corrupt it may be, when the alternative is that some members of the human race have progressed no further than believing the tenets of a 2000 year old book.

Which brings me onto my over-arching theme when dealing with religion. Why is it still around? In a world where we are encouraged to think for ourselves, and to pursue intellectual emancipation, why are there those who are happy to be constrained by others and told what/ how to think/ behave? I have my ideas, but you'll have to wait for that. Trust me, it'll be good...