Nigel Biggar

Nigel Biggar is professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford University and director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics and Public Life. There are a few important points from our conversation that I would like to highlight. First, we discussed the inevitability of differences of opinion on important matters within a democratic and pluralist society. Biggar says: “I don’t think that the answer is to require everyone to adopt the same set of terms and language and to suspend their deeper convictions and to bracket them or hide them away. I don’t think that’s feasible…The solution to managing conflict is to be found in the way in which we speak, not the language we speak it in…and the moral rules that we obey in dealing with other people with whom we disagree.” We discussed the controversy surrounding the established Church of England in a society of many faiths. According to Biggar, although the Church of England certainly enjoys a privileged position, the rest of society has complete religious freedom and the church has used its position quite generously to include other faiths in public affairs. In fact, many leaders of minority faith communities support the established church of England, stating that they would prefer to live in a nation “whose public institutions affirmed some kind of religion than one where none was affirmed.”

Biggar anticipated the counter-argument that although the established church does not restrict freedom of religion or impose any type of religious persecution on non-members, its very presence and influence in public ceremonies and institutions must result in making non-Anglicans feel as though they are second class citizens or not truly British. While irritation among non Anglicans is understandable, Biggar views such irritation as inevitable. He explains that “there is no such thing as an empty public space. There are always certain moral or metaphysical views that are either explicit or implicit. Public institutions do take moral, at least implicit moral and metaphysical stances.” If England chose to exclude religion from public institutions as is the case in France, religious believers would then be irritated. Biggar feels that public institutions cannot avoid taking some kind of stand on the issue and regardless of what that is, someone will end up frustrated. He continued: “And the people who are irritated have every freedom to argue in public that institutions should take a different stand. That’s part of democratic politics. But putting up with irritation in public life is what the liberal virtue of tolerance is all about. Tolerance is not putting up with what you don’t care about…I think in a degenerate form, tolerance means that basically you can do whatever you please as long as you don’t bother me. I don’t care what you do just as long as I can get to do what I do. Whereas I think a stronger form of tolerance is where you do something that irritates me and I tolerate it.”

A little side note: The extent of English tolerance is being put to the test as British society becomes increasingly diverse. The presence of multiple faiths, ethnicities, and backgrounds is quickly distinguishing between the stereotypical English “indifference” to others as long as they remain at a distance and true, liberal tolerance of very real difference. Characteristic British indifference may not be enough in a multicultural community. Instead, I think pluralist societies are in desperate need of active interfaith and intercultural dialogue, significant steps towards mutual understanding, and the willingness to tolerate substantial differences on a variety of levels. At the same time, I think it is crucial for members of society to not shy away from open and honest discussion about the positive and negative aspects of its various cultures so as to realistically deal with important issues that may be uncomfortable but are vital to the community's cohesion and survival.

Next we discussed whether the established Church and Christian morality are central to the idea of “Britishness” and British identity. Long established British institutions embody particular values that historically have been conveyed through the Christian faith. However, there is a current debate over whether such Christian influence should continue in a multi-faith society and whether society can keep the values and drop the religion. While this may be possible to an extent, Biggar sees it as a very complex and controversial undertaking and mentioned some atheist philosophers who actually doubt it can be done. One philosopher at the University of London has said that he thinks that “the affirmation of human dignity outside of a theological context is the equivalent of whistling in the dark…that the notion has no home outside of that context.” Additionally and very significantly, Jürgen Habermas, a German intellectual who previously subscribed to the secularization thesis, more recently “made the interesting statement that he thinks that religious traditions have the capacity to articulate our moral intuitions…by which I think he means his liberal humanist moral intuitions…so here’s a non religious person recognizing that religion, and in his case Christianity, can articulate important values that he holds, and he’s not confident that if you can extract these values from a religious context, that they will make much sense.” Overall, Biggar believes that the British people will lose more than they realize if they choose to divorce their values from the Christian tradition.

On a slightly different note, the debate over the essence of “Britishness” is especially important in light of the massive population mobility and immigration into the UK of people from all over the world. The ideology of multiculturalism has admirably aspired to allow and appreciate diversity by encouraging newcomers to maintain their cultural heritage within their new home. However, this policy has led to a kind of cultural relativism in which all cultures are to be considered as equals and can ultimately stifle intelligent conversation about which values, traditions, and customs are truly harmful or beneficial to society. According to Biggar, the idea that all cultures are equal is “just not true. And anyone who is liberal knows it’s not true.” In his opinion, the silver lining to the 7/7 tragedy is that it awoke many people to the reality of extremist fundamentalism and “the fact that there are certain cultures that we cannot tolerate.” While British society may be plural, “that does not mean that anything goes.” When immigrants choose to make Britain their home, they must realize that they are becoming part of a country with a “certain definite character and if they want to become citizens, in a sense, they have to commit themselves to be British...this is not just an empty space for them to inhabit…this was never an empty space. We just forgot that it wasn’t. So I think more thought about what modern Britishness consists of is important and immigrants need to be aware of it—whatever we decide it happens to be…”

This may not be a very big deal at all, but for me, it was a good example/reminder of how religious differences really do impact daily life in a pluralist city like London in a way that we aren't as aware of in Austin. The other night I met up with my friend Shila from UCL to go to dinner with some friends from her MA course at Imperial. We finally decided that we all wanted Nando's (a sort of nicer fast food restaurant), but the Nando's closest to uni is not Halal and Hazim (one of Shila's Muslim friends from Brunei) was not in the mood for vegetarian. Everyone tried to convince him to just not get the chicken but he wouldn't budge so after a lot of arguing, we ended up going to Pizza Hut instead. I got the impression that they have this argument on a regular basis which I found funny and also really weird! It was also cool to see some of what I'm studying played out in the everyday life of my friends..

Abdelwahab El Affendi

Abdelwahab El Affendi Osman is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster and coordinator of the Centre's Democracy and Islam Programme. The majority of our conversation centered on the topic of identity. According to Mr. Affendi, many conflicts between religious groups are not actually a direct result of religious differences as we often assume. Instead, he says there is often a different cause and religion is merely adopted as part of the group identity (rather than the root cause). As an example, he cited the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. While many people might categorize this conflict as a religious one, Affendi says that, in fact, for many in Northern Ireland, their Catholic or Protestant identities are generally inherited rather than chosen: “it becomes just like ethnicity—just like black and white in America. I was born black. I was born Catholic. That’s how I am.” He claims that many “Irish Catholics” are actually Marxists who have little religious belief at all. Thus, religion in this case is not a cause of conflict but merely an identity adopted by conflicting groups.

Similarly, Mr. Affendi suggests that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not based on religious difference but rather “a struggle over land, an ethnic struggle…There are atheist Jews and there are also Marxist-atheist Arabs that don’t believe in Islam but fight on the Palestinian side—not as much as a result of religion but because of identity, ethnicity. So in this regard, you can’t say that it is religion that is dividing people in this sense.” Affendi claims that the Palestinians initially wouldn’t have cited Islam as their creed, that most of them were actually Marxists and some of the earlier leaders were Christians. As a whole, the Palestinians saw themselves as Arab rather than Muslim and would have been more sympathetic with the communist Soviet Union over some other Arab countries. More recently, as Hamas has gained power and become more effective in fighting Israel, Palestinians have identified themselves as Muslims: “not because of its ideology but in spite of it…they say well okay, in the past we followed these Marxists but it wasn’t good now let’s see what these Islamists can do for us.”

…I think the idea that warring groups may adopt a religious identity that contributes to (though is not the cause of) their mutual antagonism is an interesting one and could be accurate to an extent in many situations throughout history. As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think Mr. Affendi is right in categorizing it as a struggle over land. However, my understanding of the situation is that this particular land has a deeply religious significance for both groups and thus the conflict is inextricably linked to religion—which in this case, seems to be extremely divisive.

Next we turned to the topic of the identity crisis faced by many immigrants today. Most immigrants to Europe and the States are presented with the difficult and confusing challenge of juggling multiple identities. This often comes in the form of both an internal struggle with oneself over questions of loyalty and belonging as well as an external struggle and negotiation with society. There is a tendency in host countries to over generalize and to ignore, intentionally or not, important differences in background, country of origin, and cultural heritage. There is often a clash or disconnect between the way an immigrant defines himself and the way his new society defines him. Mr. Affendi pointed out that prior to arriving in England, many immigrants have a more nuanced conception of themselves which may be completely ignored by society in favor of a broader generalization. For example, someone might be Pakistani or Indian, or a specific ethnicity within India, but once in Europe, they all fall under the broad and undifferentiated category of “Muslim.” In the same way, someone from Africa might be a Nigerian, and within Nigeria, he may be Yoruba or Hausa. “But then he comes to Britain or America, and everyone says, ‘No, you are black and that’s your identity.’” In the face of discrimination, immigrants that previously had no ties to each other may ultimately come together under the umbrella of the identity imposed upon them by the dominant society. Affendi says that British immigrants from Pakistan or India would not necessarily feel that they have anything in common. However, discrimination and generalization by the host society begins to create a British-Muslim identity that serves to bind them together.

The societal formation of and individual adjustment to this new identity can serve to strengthen the immigrant’s ties to Islam. Mr. Affendi explained that many Muslim immigrants who previously drank alcohol or neglected prayers have actually become more pious after arriving in Europe. Many are embracing their Islamic identity and are now wearing the hijab and participating in other Muslim rituals whereas before “they wouldn’t have really thought about it.” For some, Islam has become a positive way to establish an identity and find a sense of belonging in a pluralist society. However, others embrace radical forms of Islam as a reaction against discrimination and feelings of alienation by mainstream society. This is especially the case among second and third generation young British Muslims. Affendi explains that “if you went to a Yorkshire school in Leeds and spoke with a Yorkshire accent, you’d think that you were a Yorkshire person just like your white classmates. But then if somebody tries to show you that no, you are not, you are inferior, you are an immigrant…then if somebody else comes to you saying, well, you are a Muslim and Islam is the greatest religion in the world and we are better than these people who are unbelieving and ignorant,” you might find that to be very appealing. In that sense, young British Muslims that feel neither fully British nor Pakistani or Indian or whatever are especially susceptible to recruitment by radical Islamic fundamentalists that provide them with a higher calling and a feeling of belonging in a worldwide battleground in which they can play an important role.

Stephen Law

I've been reading too much and have started getting behind on transcribing my interviews! Last week I met with Stephen Law, senior lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, editor of THINK, a journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy aimed at the general public, and author of The War for Children's Minds, a defense of liberal values against moral and religious authoritarianism. One common theme that I've noticed in my conversations with secularists is their desire for equality or "parity" among religious and non-religious groups. In Law's view, a secular state should be completely neutral in regard to religion. A fully neutral state not only prevents conflict between groups but also protects, equally, the freedom of its citizens to engage in whatever religious activities they choose. According to Law, if the state aligns itself with a specific faith, others in the community will inevitably feel left out and aggrieved. Law explains that this "brand of secularism" is "not religiously or non-religiously partisan...it's kind of neutral on the religious issue. But of course for many religious people, to call something secular is essentially to call it atheist, and so that confuses things, and that’s not how I’m using the term." Along with many others, Law feels that Christianity is given an unfair privilege in society in the form of the established Church of England, the 26 seats reserved for Bishops in the House of Lords, etc. Ideally, each religious or non religious group would enjoy equal representation in a secular society.

Such a society, according to Law, should be founded upon "principles hopefully to which we can all sign up whether we are or are not religious--the kind of principles to which many religious people are drawn, but the kind of principles to which many non-religious people are drawn to as well. The kind of principles to which we all, as human beings, can sign up...And while religious people might want to offer religious justifications for them, the state itself doesn’t get into that kind of business." At first glance, this seems like a brilliant idea--and even quite simple. Certainly there are specific values and moral standards that we all agree on, that are, in a sense, "given." But wait, what values are those??? The liberal West champions human rights--freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, equality before the law.. In the words of the French Revolution: "liberty, equality, fraternity." For Westerners, these moral standards seem obvious--like second nature. However, the Western value system doesn't necessarily represent the norm throughout the rest of the world, as we are being forced to realize in many ways. As a result of increasing globalization and unprecedented population mobility, strikingly different value systems and worldviews are suddenly intersecting--coming into contact with one another on the streets of London and many other cities. This growing plurality makes the search for common, shared values both increasingly important and increasingly formidable. As I continue to read about and discuss the issues that face a pluralist society, I am becoming convinced that some kind of agreement on a common value system is crucial in building a cohesive society out of a multiplicity of backgrounds, beliefs, and identities, but that determining the nature of such a value system will prove to be extremely difficult.

Law’s own opinions illustrate the complexity and difficulty in determining a shared value system in two ways. First, within a pluralist society, there are often dramatic and irreconcilable differences in people’s fundamental views on right and wrong and human rights. He mentioned a poll taken in Britain a few years ago which revealed that 33% of young British Muslims believed death to be an appropriate penalty for deserters of the faith. Law pointed to the disconcerting fact that most of those surveyed had recently left English state schools, not some kind of radical fundamentalist Islamic school. According to Law, “It’s just not acceptable that they have that kind of attitude. And schools should be knocking it out very early on. Every single child in every school, even Islamic schools in this country should be constantly reminded that what religious beliefs they hold are up to them and them alone. It is their free choice, and no one gets killed or threatened or anything else because they’ve held a belief or their Imam or their mom and dad tell them. It’s up to them—their choice.” For Law, it is completely and obviously unacceptable that someone should be punished by death for their religious beliefs. Faith is a personal choice made freely by the individual. Surely the vast majority of British society wholeheartedly agrees with him. However, it seems clear that some do not. So in a situation like this, can an agreement on a communal moral standard be reached? It seems that at some point, someone is going to have to make a value judgment about which value system is superior.

Law’s next comment reveals that even within a society that has agreed to a large extent on big issues such as human rights, the search for a “neutral” system of shared values is more problematic than it seems. He mentioned the bullying of homosexuals as something that schools should take responsibility for and work to prevent. According to Law, this type of bullying happens much more often in religious schools. At least in Western societies, I think everyone can agree that any kind of bullying is not something that should be tolerated or considered socially acceptable. However, Law takes it a step further: “Those schools [religious schools] need to be doing something about that. They need to be forced to tell children that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of schools in this country that are not happy about conveying that message to children. So again I just think they should be compelled to.” To clarify, I asked, “So more than just preventing bullying, you think that they need to tell the kids that it’s okay to be a homosexual? Regardless of what their parents or religion are saying?” Law: “Yes. I do. …Makes me sound kind of illiberal. Yeah, I think there are certain basic moral standards, that being one of them, that we should make sure the schools are communicating.” Again, the search for common values proves to be elusive. While a secularist and a Catholic will probably both oppose bullying in schools, each will have very different views about the morality of homosexuality. And yet, at least for Law, teaching children that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and appropriate is part of a “basic moral standard.” So what is our basic moral standard? Do we even have one?