Vatican criticises Avatar

Ecology is not a religion, warns the Holy See

James Cameron's new film, Avatar, may be breaking box-office records, but the Vatican is not impressed -- or amused. The Holy See's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has called it "bland" and "facile", while its radio station claimed that the 3-D spectacular was "a wink towards the pseudo-doctrines which have made ecology the religion of the millennium . . . Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship."

The comment comes just days after the Pope publicly criticised world leaders for failing to agree a treaty at the Copenhagen climate summit. "To cultivate peace, one must protect creation," he said. But he has also warned before against "a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms".

I agree with the Pope that "being green" has gone way beyond a general duty to take reasonable care of our environment. For many, it now has a moral authority that allows them to feel no qualms about aggressively berating others for flying off somewhere warm on holiday, for driving a large car, or for buying non-locally produced fruit, let alone committing an act as heinous as eating shark's fin soup -- never mind that it is a dish whose popularity dates back to the days of the Ming Dynasty (though I've always found it pretty tasteless, myself).

Most green fanatics would argue ferociously that they base their views on science and the facts, but the force with which they communicate these views puts their zeal beyond mere reason. It is another example of the void left when religion is removed from society being filled by a certainty just as powerful as any belief in God. As I wrote in the NS nearly two years ago:

How else to explain the new religions that we have created for ourselves? A religion of science, whose priests make proclamations imbued with a certainty that their empirical branch of learning cannot justify; a religion of rights which, however much we may instinctively agree with it, has no more coherent proof than that it is "self-evident"; and now, perhaps, a religion of ecology whose ministers thunder as self-righteously as any 17th-century Puritan preacher.

Not that greenies would ever admit to their views being anything akin to a faith, though, so the Pope's ideas of pantheism and neo-paganism will not be publicly embraced, even if the accusation is valid. That may be a shame -- as most of the pagans, pantheists and animists I've come across are considerably more relaxed and less sententious than those greens who give the impression that they won't be satisfied until all the advances of the past two centuries have been wiped out by environmental doom.

As a recent IPPR report found, that kind of attitude is beginning to backfire quite disastrously with a public fed up with being lectured all the time. Perhaps they should remember the words of G K Chesterton? "It is always the secure who are humble."

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.