The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Signing off from The Staggers

After 18 months of blogging, I’m still convinced religion must be better understood.

By Sholto Byrnes Published 27 February 2011 13:26

After just under 18 months, this will be my last post on The Staggers, in a series that began as the "God Blog" but which then ranged beyond religion into world affairs – two subjects which in many countries are so intertwined that they cannot be regarded as separate areas of discussion – and the occasional foray into British domestic politics.

I think it would be fair to say that, as often as not, my thoughts irritated or even enraged many commenters, leading some to suggest that they should not have appeared on the website of a magazine with such a distinguished left-wing history. This stemmed at least in part from two views with which I would disagree.

First, that the New Statesman should always take a strongly atheist and avowedly secular stance. I pointed out the connection between religion and radicalism in my introductory column, "Age of Homo Religiosus", which I still believe rebuts this point. By way of example, I will merely reproduce the words Keir Hardie wrote in 1910:

I have said, both in writing and from the platform many times, that the impetus which drove me first into the Labour movement, and the inspiration which has carried me on in it, has been derived more from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than from all other sources combined.

If that was good enough for him . . .

The other argument I have tried to make – although I have been made very aware of the limits of my powers of persuasion in this regard – is that religion is an overwhelming fact in the world. Whatever certain readers may think, my aim has never been to advance the case for any religion, let alone proselytise, but instead to suggest that we would all benefit from understanding it rather than reducing it to extreme and backward-looking versions which we naturally find repugnant. This only serves the interests of fundamentalists of any or no faith.

Certainty is what makes me suspicious, whether it be an unquestioning belief in the current conclusions of sciences that are – as they should be – constantly changing as new discoveries are made, or in dogmas that do not allow for different circumstances and times, remaining stuck in the fabrics of societies that vanished centuries ago. I would include in this also certainties about the desirability of imposing our form of liberal democracy in countries with other histories and sets of values.

Any universalism always starts from a particular standpoint, and when it comes to how we think societies should order themselves the western standpoint is not unique; it also strikes me as arrogant to suggest that it is uniquely right. Those who maintain that the only justifiable left-wing position is to do just that may not realise how much that smacks of neo-colonialism in the many countries that have had quite enough of being told what to do by European and American powers. To me, it seems more naturally left-wing not to subject them to lectures and threats, but to regard and treat them as equals free to determine their own futures.

Second, and less importantly, there has been some objection to my occasional columns in support of Liberal politics. I have always thought of British Liberalism as being on the left – just look up Lloyd eorge's speeches against the privileges of the aristocracy, for instance – and that radical Liberals had much reason to be furious about the actions of the last Labour government.

Who betrayed the left during those 13 years? Not Liberals (who opposed the Iraq war, etc). Tribalism may trump principle in practice, but not, I would hope, in the pages of the New Statesman, which I believe should feel like home for Liberals just as much as it does for Labour, Green and all sorts of open-minded thinkers.

All of which brings me to thank the NS for having me as an online columnist for the last 18 months. The magazine's tolerance for divergent opinions is a tribute to its range and intelligence – and to its readers, however much they may have disagreed with me.

And on the subject of readers, my thanks to, too, to the regular commenters. I will mention just two: Daniele, who frequently took me to task, but from a consistent and coherent standpoint (and one that I respect more than Daniele perhaps imagines), and most especially to Lou, who was often a very welcome voice of support – precisely because he was the only one!

I will still be writing essays and book reviews for the magazine. Perhaps we will meet again in the comments section when future articles appear. Until then, as the Roman poet wrote, "Ave atque vale."

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Sholto Byrnes

View the discussion thread.

48 comments

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:58 — Livers (not verified)

@Keir - servants in this context means slaves and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Beating slaves is an allegory for what exactly?

I keep forgetting how slippery Christians can be when their good book gets dissed.

Lets not take the book literally, well except when we want to take it literally that is.

Sun, 2011-02-27 23:03 — Keir

'Beating slaves is an allegory for what exactly?'

What will happen to you in the _next_ life.

If you don't stop this libel.

Sun, 2011-02-27 23:09 — Robert Taggart

Religion be understood... by the ruling class... it be a means by which to control the ignorant masses, well NS bloggers excepted !

Sun, 2011-02-27 23:57 — Mam Tor (not verified)

I was hoping this was Hasan, oh well, better luck next time.

@Lou that's complete nonsense, the UDHR doesn't guarantee religion or any other belief a voice in the public space.

Mon, 2011-02-28 00:19 — Lou (not verified)

Mam Tor

I don't believe I said it did.

Mon, 2011-02-28 01:01 — mount1

The ignorant masses are not controlled by religion, they are controlled by man. As someone once said, guns don't kill people, robbers do. Only those who choose to engage with belief enough to understand and appreciate the humanity of believers understand. Otherwise they are part of the problem- where masses are ignorant enough to be 'fooled' and they themselves may rise above with disdain. Where does this disdain stop, and what does it mean ... untermensch ? Personally I am a little sickened by Daniele and his/her like, and feel there is a certain amount of self/humanity loathing apparent in his/her writing. I pity people who try so hard to reject any notion of belief in the other, be it humanity, Christianity, Islam, paganism, the zone, the flow, the craic, vibe, soul, magic, synchronicity or Santa Claus. So desperate to tell everyone 'this is it', why are they different from what or who they so plainly despise??

And why so strident?

On a separate but related point religion exists, and believers come with it, and maybe amongst else religion gives those believers a hope that the people sitting pretty over them and shitting on their heads in this world will at least face some comeuppance in the next. Because society models (to date) show little sign of doing more than providing an umbrella. Until those people stop shitting or the masses get lifted up, masses will embrace religion and who are you to be sitting so prettily in judgement? Personally I hope that humanity can go through a natural evolution of belief to something more individualised, but until then disparaging believers merely shows an unquestioned, unconvincing, unjustified and unappealing superiority complex. I.e. makes you a wanker.

I really am sorry to see SB go. One or two less quiet people in a room full of shouty knob-heads is not fatal but definitely the wrong direction for a room. Shouters never appreciate the quiet people till they have no audience and they need to follow it. Bye.

Mon, 2011-02-28 20:22 — Livers (not verified)

@mount

I'm not sure what your first para's point is. But for sure, as an atheist I am always happy to challenge a person of faith, but would never seek to tell anyone what they can or can't believe.

On your second point, saying religion is ok because the lie gives believers hope strikes me as condescending and desperate.

Mon, 2011-02-28 02:53 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Oh happy day...

When Sholto walked...

Fitting he should go now. Sholto's circular arguments about democracy 'not being the right thing for everyone' and 'alternative forms of consent' have never been so thoroghly discredited as they have by the people of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia etc.

Fitting too that he talks without irony about "dogmas that do not allow for different circumstances and times": his sloppy ersatz anthropological relativism being one.

Sholto spins disingenuously to the last, but looks to me like this was an excellent decision by the NS's editorial board - Pilger next please.

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:06 — mount1

it's not about hope, it's about the absence of hope. dimwit ?

Tue, 2011-03-01 19:21 — Jake (not verified)

Sholto,

I'm another that really enjoyed your articles, even when not necessarily agreeing with them. As an atheist I still found your writing very informative, especially on Indonesia + Malaysia. Only now do I wish I was more vocal in support, rather than - in many cases as mentioned by KW and mount amongst others - the trolls. Look forward to your essays and hope to see you in other publications soon also.

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:18 — mount1

As a someone who loves my mum I am always happy to challenge people who love their dad.

I'm a whizz at dinner parties.

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:21 — mount1

In all seriousness my rant's not directed at you, but who cares about atheists, other than people they offend. Oh, the price of missionary work :)

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:23 — mount1

Hands Castorp hasn't got any such justification for needlessly offending people though. Other than a need to feel relevant.

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:24 — mount1

But my calmer point still stands, SB may have made mistakes, but he stood up, was counted and appeared to try hard to meaningfully and thoughtfully engage with hard issues. BUT it is sooo much easier to anonymously type..

"I was hoping this was Hasan, oh well, better luck next time."

Mon, 2011-02-28 10:37 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Mam Tor

So was I!

Tue, 2011-03-01 01:31 — mount1

BTW I am sorry the above is not that choerent, but I had to break it up to get it past the NS's nutter alert filter. Justified application all things considered.

Tue, 2011-03-01 22:45 — Livers (not verified)

@mount

Re: absence of hope - better to have false hope?

Re: love dad - non-sequitor.

Mon, 2011-02-28 13:53 — Chris (not verified)

Sorry to see the end of this column. I've disagreed with and been annoyed and irritated by much of what Sholto Byrnes has said, but his work has, nevertheless, been worth reading. And if we're going to conclude with a Latin phrase, my choice is, therefore, "audi alteram partem".

Sun, 2011-02-27 13:41 — Dorian (not verified)

Religion needs to be destroyed, not understood.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:00 — Lou (not verified)

Sholto,

I thank you for the mention although I think I might have disagreed with you the once or twice in all fairness. For the record, this Lou is actually a Louise but at the time I started reading NS there was another Louise hence the name Lou.

It's a shame you are signing off,I hope someone will pick up the torch and carry on your work in this area.

I agree with every point you make in this your final article. Dorian's comment highlights exactly why your articles needed to be written.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:09 — Gerry Tierney (not verified)

Bronze-age beliefs in the age of the internet, absurd beyond comrehension.

Religion is on the way out, and good riddance to it indeed.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:10 — David Rand (not verified)

''Certainty is what makes me suspicious, whether it be an unquestioning belief in the current conclusions of sciences''

I don't think you understand science. Science is always prepared to challenge itself and look at things anew, thats what makes it so different from religion.

'To me, it seems more naturally left-wing not to subject them to lectures and threats but to regard and treat them as equals free to determine their own futures'.

That's why they need liberalism and democracy. 'They' inclue women, gay people, the poor etc and they need a voice. Don't mistake their leeches for their voices. What's happening in the Middle East shows how out of touch you are with the masses but you play to the tune of their corrupt elites nicely.

I have Aung San Suu Kyi on my side, you have the House of Saud on yours.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:22 — swatantra

Incredible that some people still hold on to ancient fables and narratives devoid of any proof whatsoever. Call me a skeptik, but that is religion, rituals and beliefs in the supernatural, reincarnation, resurrection, hosts of lost souls from time immemorial trapped in hell, or heaven, incredible.
What should be taught is humanism, and universal moral values that encompass all humanity and exclude none.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:30 — Dolly Mixture (not verified)

I have enjoyed your articles and am sorry to hear that you're leaving NS. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to reading your essays in the future.

Wed, 2011-03-02 00:53 — mount1

'Livers'
Sadly I was cut short in my prime, as I explained above.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:33 — Mathew Toll (not verified)

Religion needs to be challenged. Not placated and pandered too. Jesus had sympathy for the poor, but he also told a slave to respect his master. If you take the scriptures seriously, and you’re not indulging in some vague belief for belief’s sake you can’t comport biblical ethics to that of a morally average individual today. Faith is not a virtue. Religious belief is a barometer of society’s health, the more there is, the worst things are.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:38 — Lou (not verified)

David,

Re your quote from Sholto - 'To me, it seems more naturally left-wing not to subject them to lectures and threats but to regard and treat them as equals free to determine their own futures'.

It's a shame that you had to separate the quote from the context in which it was written regarding the West dictating how or what 'society' should be.

The masses, in the ME for example, are exactly what Sholto is speaking up for, he is saying that it is them who decide the fate of their country, the democracy they want, the society they want and not the West deciding what that democracy should be like or who is or isn't acceptable as the people's democratic choice.

Liberalism and democracy is coming to the Middle East, just how much though will no doubt depend on the will of it's people; more importantly and sadly, it will depend on the political, material, military and economic wiles of the West as to how democratic a country's people are allowed to be.

Sun, 2011-02-27 14:59 — iainburnshill

Religion is only too well undestood [eg the essential goodness of Blair]. How do we obliterate it entirely from the public sphere?

Sun, 2011-02-27 15:45 — Keir

How do we obliterate it entirely from the public sphere? We can start by asking each and every MP why they support religious worship in state schools. Because they all apparently do.

Sun, 2011-02-27 16:12 — KW (not verified)

Sholto,

I'm sorry that your blogs here are coming to an end: they are the thing that brought me to the NS in the first place. Personally, as someone brought up an atheist, your writing has been an excellent introduction to broadening my understanding of religion as a whole, islam in particular, and indonesia specifically; and for that I'm extremely grateful. Congratulations on 18 months of intelligent writing, and best of luck for the future. I hope it won't be too long till your next essay or book review.

Sun, 2011-02-27 17:12 — Lou (not verified)

For those who talk of obliterating religion, the Human Rights Act Article 9 guarantees freedom of religion for all.....'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance'

Should we cherry pick what Human Rights we support depending on our own personal belief or should Human Rights be a universal entitlement to all?

Sun, 2011-02-27 18:28 — mount1

Sad day for the site. Happy (if that's a relevant capacity) day for the w*nkers who stalk the site.

I would echo 'KW' above and just mention that those of us who did support you and greatly enjoy and welcome your posts, obviously were not vocal enough. A silent moderate majority for unfortunately not the first time. Maybe the NS should provide a like/dislike tickbox so we can approve without spending precious time (which w*ankers always seem to have in spades) trying to respond meaningfully to nuanced intelligent commentary that constructively engages with interesting and frankly unavoidable issues. After all Sholto we know it's a f*ck sight easier to type..

Religion needs to be destroyed, not understood.

Don't let the bastards get you down though man. Thanks for your work on the site, hope to see more of you.

Oh, and a freebie for you:

The devil may have the best tunes; but belief has the best lyrics.

Sun, 2011-02-27 19:51 — Daniele1

Thank you Sholto for mentioning my humble contributions. It is all the more appreciated that I almost always disagreed with your views.It shows integrity and honesty on your part and I respect that.
I will miss your articles as they were something I could exercise my own positions against and they made me think further.
I am still unconverted and I still agree with Swatantra. A damn (or damned?) atheist for ever!
Good luck with your next projects.

Sun, 2011-02-27 20:50 — Keir

'Incredible that some people still hold on to ancient fables and narratives devoid of any proof whatsoever.'

Proof is in the eating of the pudding. Some religion makes for personal changes, like a drug addict who gives up drugs, a difficult teenager who becomes tractable, a thief who gives up thieving.

Isn't it.

Sun, 2011-02-27 21:32 — Livers (not verified)

Religion borne of ignorance and used to control. Understand that.

Like the first post, it needs to die.

Sun, 2011-02-27 21:39 — Livers (not verified)

@Lou - Any religion that has always and continues to be compatible with the UDHR is fine.

Can you name one?

Mon, 2011-02-28 17:49 — Ian James (not verified)

Your Kier Hardy reference is so flawed, those same principles were being espoused by Buddha centuries before Christ, had Hardy been raised in a different environment he could have used that as a cause.

Why is it always assumed that one needs religion to have morals anyway. If you want a religious parallel here is a modern day one for you, Old Testament God,post election Liberal Democrats verses New Testament God and pre election Liberal Democrats question is which one got it wrong...... and who created the serpent and the apple?.

Sun, 2011-02-27 21:55 — Keir

Christianity.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:10 — Livers (not verified)

@Keir That one is TOO easy, there are quite a few well known oopsies in that particular special book.

The most well known being Jesus' on slavery (Leviticus 25:44). See UDHR Article 4 for a sounder position.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:16 — Keir

This old internet bigoted nonsense again. Leviticus is not for Christians. It was alleged Christians who brought an end to British slave-trading.

There is nothing in Christianity that is opposed to the UDHR, in fact it was largely inspired by Christianity. There are not too many religions that qualify, as it happens.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:18 — Lou (not verified)

@Livers,

Paganism perhaps?

Religion is not the only area you can single out as being incompatible with the UNDHR, there's a whole list of states, countries, leaders, presidents, companies, economic policies and policies generally that act in direct contradiction to the UNDHR.

I was quoting the British Human Rights Act in my point. That point still stands, is it right to be selective on what rights we extend to others just because those others beliefs are different to our own? Why single out religion for it's incompatability with the declaration when there are so many inconsistencies and deviations from the Charter for us to be unhappy about?

Singling out religion for obliteration just because it is not your choice is not justification enough. Such dismissal of the rights of others comes across as somewhat dictatorial. Anyone denying someone the right to follow a religious path because that religion runs contrary to their own views has no more moral high ground than the likes of the religious dictators of Iran,Saudi,Sudan etc

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:18 — Livers (not verified)

@Keir See Timothy 6 and Luke 12 in your preferred 'Bible part 2 - ignore the first one it was wrong' faith.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:20 — Lou (not verified)

Apologies for the typos on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - UDHR not UNDHR

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:32 — Livers (not verified)

Cripes Lou, which Paganism? There are quite a few...

... better choose one that doesn't want sacrifices ... :)

Your point is fair though. I'm not saying that people can't believe what they want... I just hope that one day critical thinking and reasoning will mean that Allah, Jesus, Abraham and the like join Zeus and Odin alongside the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:34 — gault (not verified)

i agree. when i saw johann hari saying 'No school should be a “faith school”, inspired by medieval holy books that demand death for gay people' i thought Wait, john gray is right, this is progressivism (counting on a utopian erasure of human constants) ad nauseam & ad absurdum

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:37 — Keir

'See Timothy 6 and Luke 12'

It gets worse. Luke 12 contains a parable, an allegory. In any case it deals with servants, not slaves. In 1 Tim. Paul only describes proper attitude, and there is no necessary condonement of slavery.

Utterly disgraceful.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:47 — Lou (not verified)

@Livers

Are you telling me Santa isn't real? :o)

Talk about shattering a forty something's illusions. Christmas just won't be the same anymore.

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:49 — Keir

No loss. It's a pagan nonsense, anyway.

As I'm sure you know.