On Religion and Public Ethics
Yesterday’s Iraq war memorial service can’t have been much fun for Tony Blair. Not only did he get called a war criminal by the father of a soldier who was killed in the conflict, he also had to sit quietly through the Rowan Williams’ polite denouncing of those who ‘look for short cuts in the search for justice – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face’ and ‘policy makers… who were able to talk about it [the war] without really measuring the price, the cost of justice.’ The biblical reading before the good archbishop’s sermon can’t have been too comfortable either, with its pronouncement that ‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places’.
Image: Steve Punter/flickr
Now, I’m firmly of the belief that a little awkward squirming at a memorial service is some way short of the bare minimum that Blair should have to endure for the invasion of Iraq, so my first instinct is to be very pleased that the Archbishop of Canterbury is making statements like this (though since he opposed the war from the start it’s hardly a surprise), and I’m more than happy that he should get plenty of press coverage when he does. But am I being hypocritical here? When the Catholic Church pokes its nose into issues like the creation of hybrid embryos, my first instinct is to quietly despair that an opinion spouted from just above a dog collar is not dismissed as uninformed rubbish but rather treated by the media as if it magically has the same worth as that from an expert in the relevant field. So what’s the difference? Am I just cherry-picking, supporting the right to media attention and a public platform for religious leaders only when they’re making moral pronouncements I happen to agree with, and demanding that they be ignored the rest of the time? Well, maybe. At least, that might explain my instinctive reaction to the two different cases. But there’s an important difference between the two. I don’t think there’s anything in Rowan Williams’ sermon that even the most hardline supporter of the war in Iraq would claim was factually inaccurate, regardless of how much they might disagree with the moral arguments. In the debate over the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill last year, by contrast, (which permitted the creation of hybrid embryos) various members of the Catholic clergy, whether intentionally or not, said things that were actively misleading. They repeatedly made us of words like ‘Frankenstein’ and ‘horror’, conjuring up lurid images that bore no relation to what was actually being proposed. If the debate had been honest the priests would have focused solely on the ethical status of embryos, since that was fairly obviously the issue that really bothered them. And if they’d done that, I don’t think I’d have a problem with it.
Unlike some of my fellow devout secularists, then, I don’t see a problem with giving over airtime and column inches to the views of senior religious figures on ethical questions, provided that if they make misleading or factually dubious claims, journalists will actually call them on it. Most of the time it’s pretty likely that the holy man or woman in question represents a point of view shared by a significant proportion of the population, and if that’s the case it’s entirely legitimate that that point of view be heard. I don’t really care that Rowan Williams doesn’t share my view about the plausibility of The Feeding of the Five Thousand – I’m still happy to support him when he lays into Blair about Iraq. It’s true that religious figures don’t have any special insight into moral questions simply in virtue of their vocation and shouldn’t be treated as if they do, but nor do politicians (including unelected ones like peers) or journalists, and we’re still expected to take their views seriously. That’s not really a good enough reason to shut them out of the debate.
Reader Comments
Nice work Owen,
When you ask: ‘Am I just cherry-picking, supporting the right to media attention and a public platform for religious leaders only when they’re making moral pronouncements I happen to agree with, and demanding that they be ignored the rest of the time?’
Yes I do believe you are, but then that is nothing to worry about. Lots of religious people have many interesting and thought provoking things to say, many of which have their genesis in scripture. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, if you’re of the opinion, as I am, that morals have a naturalist root, and are not governed by anything supernatural, then you are in the perfect position to cherry-pick.
I think perhaps one of the problems here, Owen, is that you conflate two inharmonious positions together; the meek and mild-manneredness of Archbishop Williams, and the strict, conservative view of a fascistic Catholic priest (in your illustration above). Religious practitioners obviously have their differences, it’s up to the rest of us to judge as to whether they are right in their opinion or wrong, thus I see it as perfectly reasonable that Williams’ criticism appeals to me, than the view of some twerp who cannot see the medical advantages of hybrid embryos.
Glad you like it. What I was trying to do, though, was see if I could find a principle for determining when it was legitimate for religious figures to be given a public platform to air their views other than ‘when I like what they’re saying’. I think ‘when they’re not making shit up’ is a pretty good candidate. If the cardinals had been saying ‘hybrid embryos are unethical because life begins at conception’ then I wouldn’t have a problem – I disagree, but it’s not empirically wrong.
It’s a tough job you’ve given yourself, but our meek anglican commentators usually speak some sense, at least the ones who they allow on the telly or radio. Have you looked into the musings of Richard Holloway, he astounded Richard Dawkins by pretty much agreeing with everything he said!!