Why Secular societies need Religion

Why Secular societies need Religion

In one way or another all Western countries are secular, with differing degrees of enforcement of this division between religion and the State.  This means that the laws put in place are all positive laws based on reason and formulated by people for the benifits of the people who live in a  given country. Positive laws are not only preferable but essential if we are to legislate on the complexities of modern life; we can't very well go back to the Old Testament if we wish to revamp the Highway Code. Yet, as any decison is inevitably value based we should may be assess the appropriateness of the values we base such laws on.

At present we live in a time with few all - pervasive belief systems. One that has however become onipotent in the field of modern ethics is Natural Law. This has become, as a theory, so powerful that it is now operating in the state of an unquestionable truth. However, as I have argued previously, natural law in fact encourages an egocentric attitude to the world as it enshrines our rights to look after ourselves.  Even if this were not an issue let us may be question the 'natural' nature of these laws. Few people would question the bond of a mother and her newly born child. Most would indeed see it as natural. Yet applying natural law we could argue that this is far from natural as the dependency of the child on their mother in fact imprisons both of them and therefore limits the 'freedom' of both. This is of course an absurdity as there is nothing more natural than birth and family thus a different motivation must be working, one that is stronger than the so called natural rights.

It could be therefore that there is nothing natural about Natural Rights. Although the concept has been around in various forms for over two thousand years it is to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries that we must look to understand the modern version of Natural Rights. In this time we see the slow and painful transition from monarchy to democracy. It took different paths in different countries but this process gave us the freedoms we have today. Alas as part of this we threw of the precepts of religion in favour of positivism and secularism.  This in many ways was natural as the Church stood for tradition and monarchy. However, in escaping these shackles we undermined our belief system.

With no higher authority we are our own judges relying on the Natural Laws we in fact created. These laws in turn tell us to do no more than look after ourselves. Human Rights law, based on Natural Law, has tried to deal with this problem but only really creates an equality thus falling far short of true justice. Treating people equally can have very unjust results as they may theoretical have equal chances that don't take into account the very real material and structural differences. For true justice we must look for something more, a higher goal to aim for.

Whatever great religion you look at they all have a concept of perfection,  of goodness. You can call it God or just truth, it doesn't really matter. But simply put it puts an ideal above our basic desires.  Sure we fail most of the time to achieve this ideal but we can nevertheless strive for it knowing that the alternative would most certainly be worse.

Returning to positive laws then, we must indeed base them on something. Some concept must underpin our deliberations when we legislate. A Religious State would be truly unjust as it would limit the interpretations of this concept if a higher truth and invariably become dogmatic and judgemental, yet a Secular System underpinned with a highly religious culture would indeed encourage the searching for truth in any descion. This needs to be at all levels however as otherwise it would become hollow: well meaning laws sabotaged or corrupted by the citizenry. Such a system requires therefore a reengagement with religion. All religions, it really doesn't matter which as there inner truths are the same.

Of course this system should be, ironically enough, backed up by strong secular laws and anti-descrimination legislation in order to ensure a truly healthy debate where no one feels victimised. This revolution would indeed require the rewriting of laws and constitutions so as to ensure that the concept of a greater truth becomes instrumental at every level and we do away with the promotion of the ego.

The Failure of Liberalism

It is with a stern and heavy heart that I announce the abject failure of Liberalism. This statement is not through flippancy but comes from looking at the world around us. In amongst the news stories about the “Panama Papers” and the “Global Economic Crisis” the question of 'what went wrong' seems to keep coming back to us. In the 21st Century, with laws, regulations and systems in place, the world is still a very unequal place where the rich seems to play with the lives and prosperity of millions. Is it just human nature? Are we destined to carry on making these mistakes and living in such an unequal world. Perhaps we made a wrong turn some where. Perhaps we chose to emphasise the wrong characteristics from the myriad of possibilities. 

There are many things in this world that we take for granted: unwritten rules of behaviour or basic principles of right or wrong. However, most things have at one point in our history actually been debated and decided upon. Over time these ideas then enter the social fabric and make up our subconscious system for dealing

with the world. 

For proof of this we need look no further than the fact that the written constitution has become the  undisputed cornerstone of state creation. No sooner has a desire for independence or 'regime change' been aired then a call is made for, and subsequent work is carried out on, a written constitution. In fact few countries, with the United Kingdom being a notable exception, do without having a codified constitution. Yet, the prevalence of the written constitution today does not necessarily mean that they exist in order to proclaim and embody a higher truth. Whilst Plato extrapolated the details of his 'Republic' in order to deal with often practical concerns, he never the less was attempting to discover a route to justice as Benjamin Jowett explained in his introduction to his translation: 

(...) for justice is the order of the State, and the State is the visible embodiment of justice under the conditions of human society. The one is the soul and the other is the body, and the Greek ideal of the State, as of the individual, is a fair mind in a fair body. In Hegelian phraseology the state is the reality of which justice is the idea. (Jowett. 2014)

It is a matter of somewhat questionable certainty whether we could say the same today. Where the state is the embodiment of the constitution it therefore holds that the constitution should be striving to describe the ideal: the higher truth; justice. Alas, we often relegate this concept to the realm of the judiciary, happy that the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech absolves us of seeking justice in all its forms. On the fringes of the debate we hear mention of social justice and placate ourselves with some forms of charitable work or donation. We have however missed the point somewhat.

Whilst our states and their formative constitutions are clear and practical legal documents for all to admire, few, I would hesitate, are devised with a clear understanding of what truth is in itself; but rather they copy and pass on an idea of certain natural rights. They therefore strive to achieve a fair balanced society without actually knowing what one is. Inevitably they are reactionary, that is attempting to correct the errors of prior systems. This being the case they often overcompensate in some way or rely on generally accepted concepts of justice in order to appease all.

Europe as a whole has in fact arrived at a point in history where the only truly acceptable form of constitution, and therefore state, is one that provides for a representative democracy. This has become such an accepted part of European politics that it has been enshrined in the European Union treaties as well as in the Washington Treaty. The second feature that has become unquestionable is the existence of a capitalist economy. European states are engineered in such a way as to be conducive to this arrangement and in fact create the impression that there is no other viable form. This is further strengthened by the four pillars of the EU, placing emphasis on flow of capital amongst other things.

However, whilst some prominent economists have over the centuries explored the benefits and drawbacks of a capitalist economy their ideas do not seem to have been fundamental to contemporary constitutions; moreover, that little thought has been done on what the best basis of any give constitution should be seems evident from the essential preamble to the constitutions; where little emphasis is placed on defining and justifying the economic system preferred and in fact these seem to paraphrase each other.

Modern constitutions have followed on from enlightenment thinking by expounding the natural nature of certain features. The Polish Constitution of 19972 for example talks in its preamble of universal values deriving either from God or another source as believed by each individual. These values are "truth, justice, good and beauty". However, the preamble states them rather in passing as opposed to making direct reference to them:

Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland (…) 

It is not of course the case that concepts of a definitive truth have never been directly dealt with in other constitutions. It follows that concepts proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence were still held by the writers of the US Constitution, the most famous of which were:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, we see that the framers believed that certain rights were self-evident. This, is from a philosophical point of view somewhat of an empty statement. That said, if we take that they are indeed self-evident then we must question what actual rights have been put forward. Life, Liberty and Happiness are enshrined in the US Constitution yet are we to believe that these represent justice? Is having the liberty to live in poverty just? The writers of the constitution were in fact heavily influenced by John Locke and his ideas of 'Natural Law'. The phrase 'self evident' thus concerns the natural 'god given' nature of such rights.

Moreover, there is still ongoing debate as to the relationship in Locke's theories between natural rights and natural law. It is possible that Locke's natural laws were merely conjectures of his stance on natural rights. Natural rights in turn are a somewhat basic appraisal of our animal instincts and do not elevate us beyond the animal level. Thus it could be argued that basing a constitution, and thus society, upon such natural law encourages inequality and hinders our development. Even within Classical Liberalism (of which Locke was a founding father) there were opposing camps: Jeremy Bentham (prominent Utilitarianist) for instance was adamantly opposed to the idea of natural rights claiming that they encouraged and in fact led to anarchy.    

                                                                                                                            John Locke

Returning to Poland, in comparison Poland's constitution removed itself even further from the philosophical premise that such rights exist. By focusing on the holder of such beliefs and their equality before the law the Polish Constitution sterilised the effectiveness of said rights. This is perhaps in part due to the unspoken belief in the validity of such rights and methods as eluded to above. The Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), has unsurprisingly had a great influence on much of political thought since its publication in 1789. It's quite broad assertions, based on natural law theory, have affected both state and institutional constitutions and charters. It is in fact still quoted in the preamble to the current French Constitution of 19585:

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.

By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

However, France's interpretation of such rights is somewhat controversial. Take for instance the first article ensuring equality: 

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.

The equality has been taken to mean no right to express yourself if it infringes on another’s sensibilities and thus all religions signs are banned in public. Here it would be easy to question whether justice has truly been found in the Platonic sense.

In broader terms, the very universal and inalienable nature of such rights poses though a problem as to what extent these rights have become mere window dressing. Stated, but rarely implemented. For that matter, is natural law theory still a viable concept? Natural Law theory inevitably promotes the individual as the basis of organisation. In an interconnected and multicultural world perhaps emphasis should indeed be placed upon other things.

Furthermore, returning to the opening paragraph, has natural law theory and liberalism actually led us astray? It promotes individualism and the idea that property and yourself are the key features of life. Its no wonder that, with these as the underlining values of our society, we are in such a mess today, four hundred years after John Locke put pen to paper. It is time to move on; to start to think again. If we are ever to develop as a society we must rethink our most basic concepts. 

Debaathisation and it's repercussions

It seems an age ago that Paul Bremer made that fateful decison to remove all Baath Party members from Iraq. In doing so he took the rug from under the Iraqi people.

Recovering from war is a tricky thing at the best of times and yet what is certain is that key positions and functions must be kept operational if the transition is to be successful.

This was known in 1945 with regard to Nazi Germany.  The Allies knew that if they removed all Nazi members they would be removing the very fabric of German society: school teachers, police officers and fire fighters.

It appears that the provisional authority were not keen historians and did in fact this very thing. Overnight hundreds of thousands of soldiers, police and civil servants were got rid of. Understandably they were a bit peeved and as they say ... the rest is history.

Do we want the same for Syria?

If we get rid of Assad what will happen?  How much of the "regime" will need to fall? I'm sure the united opposition would like to get rid of all members of the "party" but this can not happen; we can not allow history to repeat itself. ... someone has to manage the country!

European Identity - From a construct to the innate

I recently read an article on Facebook criticising the rewriting of European history through the use of school text books. The article claimed that the books were glossing over the many divisions within European history in order to create the sense of a common European identity and thus an unstoppable process culminating naturally in a European State.

I am not going to talk about the rights and wrongs of the case against the textbooks, as I have not read them. Rather, I would like to discuss the idea that there is no such thing as a European identity.

Jean Paul Sarte once said that "we are what we make of what others make of us". A bit of a confusing statement I know :) but essentially he was always of the opinion that identity is something we create when dealing with the world around us.

The question is not therefore, is European identity something that has always existed but is this something that we can identify now. Are there things that identify Europeans as different to the rest of the world which overrides the differences between the individual identities? That does not mean that we must get rid of the others. We all carry many identities: I am English, British, a husband, a man, a teacher etc .  . These all play different roles in my life.

Returning to the idea if a constructed identity; both the British and American identities are the products of very discernible historical events. If you were to ask a resident of England living in 1650 about their sense of identity then you would be unlikely to get anything wider than English.  The Act of Union of 1707 created the political entity of Britain but it took many years to forge a common identity.  This process was still going on in the 19th century. 

In a similar way American identity was forged through the War of Independence yet even as late as the 1860s this identity was still somewhat artificial. The Civil War was horrifically bloody and pitted two very different identities against one another. The south were able to declare succession due in a large part to the lack of a sense of common identity with the north.

Yet today, in 2016, would we question the existence of either British or American identity? Of course not, they have both been forged through the common histories and exploits of their respective people. As with many things in life,  hardships often play a greater role in creating identity than prosperity. The idea of a common "other" an "enemy" will cement the sense of a shared identity faster than anything else.

This unfortunate fact means that until Europeans are forced to face the world together, then they probably won't. That said, it is just a matter of time before this identity is forced upon us and we have to 'make of what others make of us'. 

Jeremy

The road to peace

As we approach the date set by the British Prime Minister for a UK referendum on EU membership it is perhaps easy to loose track of the big picture. Both sides if the in/out argument seem to focus on the business and work reasons for staying in or getting out. But is this everything?

Are we purely mercantile egoists calculating our immediate gain without any regard to history or destiny? Britain did not become a prosperous liberal democracy through ignoring what was the right thing to do. Take the slaver trade for instance,  in 1807 and 1833 respectively  the slave trade and slavery were abolished. This was undoubtedly against the economy interests of the economy at the time, but was the right thing to do.

Taking this argument forward a bit; Britain's declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 made little economic sense. We were well-prepared for such an endeavour as the following 'phoney war' proved.  That said, morally it was the right thing to do. It was also the right strategic decision in the long term. Sometimes we must bite the bullet and take the mediate hardships in order to obtain some great prize.

That said, the economic arguments for or or against a British EU exit are far from a foregone conclusion. The one thing that economists do agree on is that it is impossible to predict the full repercussions of such a withdrawal. We should therefore perhaps refocus the argument, away from business and back to people's lives.

What do people gain from being in the EU and what do they loose? The average voter is not affected by the regulations regarding the city if London and has in fact more in common with a factory worker in Germany or Slovakia than they do with a stockbroker in London. Whereas the UK government is increasingly under the influence of big business it is in fact the EU'S labour laws that are the best protector of workers' rights in the UK.

The EU offers a path to integration and interdependency which acts as a deterrent for aggressive and destabilising national policies. Outside of the EU Britain would undoubtedly be forced into protectionist policies as its work and business market would be proportionately disadvantaged with regards its much large neighbour. Without the UK the EU would undoubtedly forge ahead towards deeper integration resulting in an insurmountable gap between the UK and the rest of Europe.

An independent UK standing alone against a federal Europe in say 50 years time would be in a very poor situation. By 2060 it is easy to forecast that China will have completed its ascendancy and be truly regarded as a global power, whilst the rest of the BRIC  countries will be on a similar level to that of many Western Europe  countries today. The one difference being population. Brazil,India and Russia all have population potential that far outstrips the most likely growth of any EU country. Once there economy has been developed enough then their greater population will be their true asset providing a workforce that we will be unable to match.

Whilst the USA and EU would be in a position to compete with the BRIC countries, the UK would be in  a marginalised position with perhaps only it's banking industry providing any rest-bite. However, as seen by the 2011 London Riots, the gulf between the haves and have-nots is already creating social problems and these would only be exasperated by an increasingly isolated UK.

As fuels decrease in abundancy the chances of conflict increase still further. We are already seeing the effects of a changing economy on our military.  The cuts announced by the Conservative government were met with warnings by seasoned generals on both sides of the Atlantic. A UK standing alone would have little chance of securing increasingly scarce resources or having an affect on international policy. The USA would be forced to deal with the EU over the UK as this would represent the best economic and thus strategic partner.

Returning to the opening argument, the EU grew out of the Coal and Steel Community which had a primary aim of integrating the industries of France and Germany in order to decrease the chance of war.  Although the industries of war have perhaps changed, the need for integration has not.  If you value peace and prosperity then you have but one choice: Vote no to a British exit.