A fierce debate on a religious matter

Kate Malby

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7062178/a-fierce-debate-on-a-religious-matter.thtml

The Spectator hosted a debate at the Royal Geographic Society yesterday evening with a rather meaty motion: “Secularism is a greater threat to Christianity than Islam”. We have two reviews of the occasion. The first, by Kate Maltby, is below. Lloyd Evans' can be found here.

Last night’s Spectator debate on the motion “Secularism is a greater threat to Christianity than Islam” was marked by a highly personal level of investment from the speakers, a sudden swing in the vote, and the uncharacteristic sight of Chair Rod Liddle acting as the most conciliatory person in the room. Although the debate ranged far and wide, at its heart was an old-fashioned contest between traditionalists interested in the cultural hinterland in which society changes, and rationalists who use the calculus of terrorism statistics and murder rates. Liddle introduced Damian Thompson as “further to the Right than a fishknife”. But when Thompson’s opponent for the night, Douglas Murray, was introduced as the only possible speaker who might outflank him on the Right, it was a reminder of just how many attitudes can fall under the label of “Right wing” nowadays.

The Reverend Timothy Radcliffe OP opened for the motion. To Radcliffe, Christianity is not threatened by attempts to separate Church and State. The current and previous governments, he added wryly, both made regular announcements about the importance of faith involvement in community. Rather, Christianity is threatened by fundamentalist secularism, which argues that the only valid truths that are scientific. Christianity, Radcliffe claimed, has never excluded science. Indeed, St Albert the Great insisted on testing every hypothesis concerning nature that he encountered, even carrying around an iron bar with him to test on every passing ostrich the claim that an ostrich could ingest iron. By contrast, “secularism, by definition, makes totalitarian claims – only a Communist dictator could come up with a phrase that his writers could “engineer the soul”.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, a convert from Islam and senior Anglican evangelist, opposed. He drew on his own experience of persecution in Pakistan, and his understanding of Islamic history. “Never and nowhere has secularism destroyed Christianity, but the same cannot be said for Islam”. Moving with familiarity through a rapid range of examples, he paid particular attention to the Muslim conquest of Syria in 635–8. Notorious for its prescription of the death penalty for apostates, “Islam is unique among world religions on the pressure it exerts on other faiths.” Unlike Christianity, Islam legislates for all areas of public and “secular” life, Sookhdeo noted. And even in the 21st century, we have seen Islamic aggression: in Smyrna, Assyria, the Armenian genocide, the Sudanese civil war and the decimation of the Christian population in Iraq. Only in an Islamic state could Asia Bibi find herself on Death Row, two of her most prominent political defenders murdered.

Damian Thompson began his response by praising Sookhdeo’s support for persecuted Christians. He was clear in his condemnation of Christians who fail to confront Islam, or to defend their faith. But he argued that Christian timidity can be directly attributed to the fact that Western Christianity itself has become secularised. The Church of England, even the Catholic Church, has become infected by relativism, while Christians who defend “unfashionable” or socially conservative viewpoints find their cultural reference points eroded by social scorn and religious illiteracy.

The Spectator blogger and Observer columnist Nick Cohen gave a secular defence of the Enlightenment. He also attempted to draw together the disparate strands of the debate that had at times focused on Western religion, at times on Developing World religion. “Christianity in the West has been made temperate by the Enlightenment”, but the same is true neither of Islam, nor of Christianity in the wider world. Rejecting Father Radcliffe’s definition of “fundamentalist secularism”, Cohen argued that secularism chiefly seeks to establish a framework for pluralism. “It is the only way for multiculturalism — and therefore the only way that people born into religious communities can have access to new ideas”.

For Tariq Ramadan, Cohen’s insistence on scepticism typified the arrogance of secularists “who are dogmatic about the superiority of doubt”. Ramadan insisted upon the diversity of interpretations of Islam, arguing that reductionist descriptions of Islam by its opponents only increase tension and conflict. Many of the most oppressive tactics by Muslim dictatorships, he noted, have been supported by Western, secular patron-states. But at the highest levels, Christian leaders recognise that Muslims share their concerns about the soullessness of modern society, and the need to put the challenge of difficult ethical questions at the heart of our spiritual lives.

Douglas Murray retorted that he’d recently been asked if, seeing Ramadan so often at the same debates, there was a danger they might become friends. “No way!” Murray passionately condemned the claim that the social pressures exerted on Christians by Western secularists can be compared to persecution in the Islamic world, reeling off a sobering list of incidents of Islamic violence monitored in the last fortnight alone. Even in Britain, Muslims risk death for opting out of the communities into which they are born — secularists may be aggressive, but they have never blown up British buildings. Murray even reminded the audience of Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address: “it was a lecture that mainly attacked secularism, but not one secularist made a violent threat in response. There was one throw-away line about Islam, and within days, a nun had been killed in reprisal in Somalia”.

The debate, already heated, did become particularly fierce at this point. Douglas Murray’s attack on “Western Christians who ignore the plight of Catholics in Pakistan but complain about nasty anti-Catholic jibes at the dinner table”, earned a complaint from Thompson: “nothing in my life has ever been so misrepresented”. Thompson was still expressing his disappointment on Twitter several hours later.

But underlying the spat was a genuine and intriguing difference of approach. For all the speakers in the affirmative, secularism was perceived as a threat because it eroded the vocabulary of faith, disconnecting contemporary culture from the aesthetics of Christian meaning. So is killing a culture as absolute as killing a human being? Not for Murray and Cohen, but perhaps for some of the audience.

And that audience, including many regular CoffeeHousers, was on top form. Questions ranged from the nature of evil to the practicalities of evangelism. Meanwhile, Dr Sookhdeo took Professor Ramadan to task on his description of a liberal “amorphous” Islam, challenging him to name a secular or Christian country that executed converts. And just when it seemed that the debate would stretch to whole new horizons (“China!” interjected Father Radcliffe, “we haven’t talked about China!”), it was time for the results of the vote.

Before the debate:

For: 137
Against: 67
Abstain: 92

After the debate:
For: 108
Against: 167
Abstain: 8

Review of Spectator debate on secularism, Islam and Christianity

Lloyd Evans
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7062238/web-exclusive-review-of-spectator-debate-on-secularism-islam-and-christianity.thtml

2 July 2011

Secularism is a greater threat to Christianity than Islam
Royal Geographic Society
June 29th 2011

Chair
Rod Liddle

FOR the motion:
• Father Timothy Radcliffe OP
• Professor Tariq Ramadan, Contemporary Islamic Studies, University of Oxford
• Damian Thompson, Leader Writer, Daily Telegraph

AGAINST the motion:
• Nick Cohen, Observer Columnist
• Douglas Murray, Journalist, Author and Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society
• Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director, Barnabas Fund

Fr Timothy Radcliffe, a Dominican friar based in Blackfriars Oxford, proposed the motion arguing that secularism appeared in ‘strong and weak’ varieties. Weak secularism meant the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. Strong secularism entailed a belief that the only valid truths are the verifiable and falsifiable propositions approved by science. ‘Strong secularism is dangerous. It threatens Christianity and civilisation because it makes a totalitarian claim for one branch of learning.’ Science cannot cope with the fundamental questions of life which are the domain of philosophy, poetry and religion. Mocking the self-professed ‘secularists’ he knew at university, he said ‘they fell in love and kissed one another for non-scientific purposes.’

The Very Revd Patrick Sookhdeo, Dean Theologian of the Church of Nigeria, identified the true threats to Christianity as ‘loss of faith and loss of soul; and these come from within.’ We value secularism because it creates an impartial forum for the free exchange of arguments. ‘Secularism has never destroyed Christianity but Islam has.’ As a former Muslim he outlined for us the bitter and bloody conflicts between his adopted religion and the faith he inherited at birth. Mohammad drove Jews and Christians out of the Arabian peninsular. His followers seized Damascus and Jerusalem from Christian control. Under Shariah law Christians were tolerated provided they paid a special levy. ‘At one time their inferior status had to be demonstrated in the style and colour of their dress.’ What makes Islam unique, he said, is the pressure it places on rival religions. He recited historic massacres of Christians by muslims and updated this with a list of recent atrocities in Afghanistan and Egypt. In Iraq, militant Islamists have attempted to drive Christians from a land where they have worshipped since the earliest days of their faith. Which would we prefer, he asked, an Islamic state or liberal democracy?

Damian Thompson, Blogs Editor of the Daily Telegraph, argued that Christianity is moribund in secular Britain. ‘This country is one of Christianity’s dying rooms.’ Barely seven per cent of us worship every Sunday. This figure, he claimed, represents a decline of 50 per cent since the 1970s. ‘And what’s putting us off? The music. The most chilling sentence in the English language is, “our next hymn is, ‘Shine, Jesus, Shine’.”’ He regarded secularism as less as an ideology than a process, ‘like the weather’, which has replaced Christianity with ‘fads and confused spirituality’. The clergy have become secularised themselves. They embrace gay adoption and quietly support attempts to prevent church schools accepting practising Christians. He deplored ‘the secular spinelessness of the multi-cultural bishops’ who fail to speak out against Islamic oppression of Christians for fear of seeming ‘racist’ or attracting opprobrium ‘across the dinner table.’

Observer columnist Nick Cohen rejected Fr Radcliffe’s categorisations of secularism and offered us the definition written into the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson. ‘All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, opinions in matters of religion.’ This precept stands in clear opposition to faith schools which, Cohen said, ‘put children into boxes according the poisonous concepts of religion and race.’ Hazy notions like religious respect made him uncomfortable. ‘Should we not condemn persecution out of “respect?”’ Though no admirer of fanatical atheism, he reminded us that ‘militant atheists carry books; militant theists carry guns.’ In the great social battles of the 20th century — for women’s freedom, gay rights and racial tolerance — it was always religious movements that impeded progress. Free societies are precious, he declared. We mustn’t take our values for granted.

Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford, found the motion, dangerous and reductive. For him ‘the dogmatic mind’, occurring in both religious and secular societies, is the problem. Secularists are apt ‘to reduce all of Islam to the radical approach of some.’ He characterised this anti-religious creed with the rhetorical device, ‘I doubt, so I am right. You believe, so you are dangerous.’ He wants respect rather than just ‘tolerance’. ‘I suffer your presence but I cannot remove you from the pictures. This is patronising’. And he highlighted the hypocrisy of western societies which deplore extreme forms of Islam and yet prop up states that propagate it. ‘I would like to free Saudi Arabia. But who is supporting Saudi Arabia, where you cannot build a church? The UK.’

Douglas Murray, founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, opened with an ironic concession. ‘Islam is not violent per se, though they’re quite good at it when they’re in charge.’ He accused Christian churches of reacting with ‘moral blindness and cowardice’ to the deaths of their co-religionists around the world. He recited a chilling catalogue of kidnappings and murders committed in North Africa and the Middle-East during April and May this year. He then added the Archbishop of Canterbury’s response on June 20th: ‘it’s a very anxious time for Christians worldwide.’ The problem, Murray said, lies not with religious texts but with their elevation into legal instruments. ‘Secularism isn’t a problem. It’s the answer. The only answer anyone has come up with.’

Challenged from the floor to deny that secularism led to moral relativism and nihilism, Murray refused to frame the debate in those terms. ‘In a secular society you can make your case. If it’s a good case it will win. And others can make their case and carry on making it. It’s the best hope any of us have.’

During the debate the house shifted decisively in favour of the opposition. The motion was defeated.

Pre-vote
For: 137           
Against: 67      
Undecided: 92

End vote
For: 108           
Against: 167    
Undecided: 8

BARNABAS DIRECTOR WINS DEBATE ARGUING ISLAM GREATER THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY THAN SECULARISM

Barnabas Fund's International Director Dr Patrick Sookhdeo was on the winning side in a prestigious debate, organised by The Spectator, arguing that Islam is a greater threat to Christianity than is secularism.

Dr Sookhdeo spoke alongside Observer columnist Nick Cohen, and Douglas Murray, an author, journalist and Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society, against the motion "Secularism is a greater threat to Christianity than Islam" at the event in London on Wednesday (29 June).

Damian Thompson, the Telegraph's leader writer and blogs' editor, Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, and Father Timothy Radcliffe OP, a Dominican friar from Blackfriars, Oxford, spoke for the motion.

Before the debate, the audience voted in support of the motion but the house shifted decisively against it after hearing arguments put forward by Sookhdeo, Cohen and Murray.

DR SOOHKDEO'S OPENING SPEECH AGAINST THE MOTION

A Christian has nothing to fear from either Islam or secularism. The loss of faith, the loss of one’s own soul, are the true threats to a Christian. And they come from within. For these the Christian himself or herself is principally responsible, and can blame no one and nothing else.

For Christianity, however, outside forces can be a threat; indeed they can lead to its complete eradication. But which is the greater threat, Islam or secularism?

To answer this, we must look beyond the UK today to the global and historical situation. We must carefully distinguish secularism – as mentioned in our motion – from secular humanism. Secularism provides for the religious impartiality of the state and civil society, guarantees religious freedom, and is a Christian concept in origin. Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” (Mark 12:17) Secular humanism, by contrast, is actively opposed to religion. We must also distinguish Muslim people from the Islamic religion and its diverse streams.

Never and nowhere has secularism destroyed Christianity. But the same cannot be said for Islam. When Muhammad began his religious work, around 610 CE, the Arabian Peninsula was inhabited by pagans, Christians and Jews. By 644, the whole population was Muslim; the other religions no longer existed there.

Muhammad’s early encounters with Christians were peaceable. When his first followers were persecuted, he even sent a group of them to seek refuge in Christian Abyssinia, where they were welcomed in. Later in life, however, his attitude changed, as clearly reflected in Quranic verses of the time. Christians were no longer considered friends, but enemies to be shunned. From that time, Islam has been ideologically hostile to Christianity.

In 635 Muslim armies conquered the Christian city of Damascus. In 638 Jerusalem fell, followed in 641 by Alexandria, a centre of the early Church fathers.   Within a hundred years of Muhammad’s death, the Muslims had established a mighty Islamic empire, much of it carved out of formerly Christian territories. It is naïve to believe, as some have argued, that the Muslims simply responded to Christian pleas for protection from their own rulers. No, the growth of the Islamic empire was primarily due to an expansionist drive that is intrinsic to the doctrines of Islam itself.

Christianity therefore found itself under the rule of Islam. With the passing of time, various agreements and rules were developed to govern the relationship of Christians with their Muslim rulers. This process culminated in the creation of the sharia, Islamic law, which permitted the presence of Christians within Islamic societies, but not as equal citizens with Muslims. Christians were classified as dhimmi, subjugated people with a subservient role. Dhimmi were required to pay a poll tax, called jizya , as a sign of their submission to the Islamic state. They were restricted by a host of regulations, all designed to reinforce the message that they were of lesser value than Muslims. At one time, this distinction even had to be shown in the style and colour of their clothing. Islamic law was stricter still for Christians who had converted from Islam, laying down a death penalty for all adult male apostates.

Islam is unique among world religions in the pressure it exerts on other faiths. This is because no other religion legislates on such a scale and in such inflexible detail about politics, economics, warfare, and the relative rights of various sections of society.

There have been occasional periods of peaceful coexistence, but usually at times and in places when Christians have accepted their subordinate position under Islam, or when there has been an overarching power, such as the British Empire.

Christians have not fared well in Islamic history. Consider in recent times the Balkans in 1875-6, the Armenian Genocide of 1915, Smyrna in 1922, the Assyrians in 1933.

In our own day, we have had the Sudanese civil war of 1983 to 2005, in which some two million people died, principally Christians but also some Muslims and some from African traditional religions. This appalling death toll was due to efforts by the Northern Islamic government to Islamize and Arabize the mainly non-Muslim, African South.

In post-Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi Church, which has existed since New Testament times, has been decimated. Barely a quarter of the 1990 Christian population now remains.  I do not mean that Christians have been caught accidentally in the conflict. I mean that they have been deliberately targeted by Islamists who threaten, kidnap, torture and murder them and bomb their churches, in an effort to force the entire Iraqi Christian community to leave their homeland.

The so-called “Arab spring” may herald a “Christian winter” as Islamist groups step into power vacuums left by the fall of longstanding regimes.  In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has already created new alarms for the Church in a context where Christians have faced discrimination and injustice for nearly fourteen hundred years.

In Afghanistan, the entire Afghan convert Church faces possible extinction, either at the hand of their own government or by the Taliban.

So which threatens Christianity more? Islam or secularism?

Imagine that you are a woman in Pakistan, a Christian woman, a labourer, barely able to read. You are in prison, falsely accused by Muslim co-workers of defiling the name of Muhammad. You have been sentenced to death. A prominent Muslim politician who spoke in your defence has been assassinated. A prominent Christian politician, who then took up your cause, has also been assassinated. Top leaders of the more moderate Muslims of Pakistan, the Barelvis, have warned that you must not be pardoned. The president, judiciary, military and religious establishment are all calling for your death.

This is the current situation of Aasia Bibi, a mother of five, on death row.

Which kind of country do you think Aasia Bibi wants to live in? An Islamic state or a secular state? Where do you think she is more likely to find justice and security?

Now imagine that you are me, a convert from Islam to Christianity. As an apostate, I am viewed by Muslims as a traitor, and Islamic law says I should be killed.  In Muslim countries, many converts are killed, on rare occasions executed by the state but more commonly assassinated unofficially or murdered by relatives.

Where would I prefer to live? In a secular state where the law guarantees me freedom of conscience, freedom to choose or change my faith, and protects me from religious violence? Or in an Islamic state where such fundamental liberties are denied?

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, 29 June 2011

0 Comments