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?