A Conversation between Julian Bond (Director, Christian Muslim Forum), Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (MCB and President, Christian Muslim Forum), Peter Cave (Chair, Humanist Philosophers)
The evening began with a welcome from Marianne Zeck to the beautiful and atmospheric St Ethelburga’s Centre. Each of the three panellists then set the scene, giving their own initial response to the question.
Julian Bond
As a Christian, Julian was optimistic that as both religious and secular communities have their share of visionary people and activists, they can work together to propose change. Concern for issues of justice and care for the marginalised is central to Jesus’ message, and his ‘manifesto’ issued at his sermon at Nazareth proclaiming the words of Isaiah ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor, ..liberty to the captives….sight to the blind’ is one which suggests that social justice ought to be at the heart of Christian action. Julian's full text is here
Show more
Likewise, the work of secular humanitarians has focused upon the marginalised. Both have worked in the past for women’s suffrage, abortion law reform, homosexuality decriminalisation legislation and civil rights. ‘The good belongs to everyone’. With the caveat - not at the extreme edges of either community. Julian highlighted the need to listen to each other, for this to work, and gave the example of Christian-Muslim relationships – where we are most divided on what we share, Jesus.
Julian then highlighted the need for values to be visible in the public arena, and suggested that for the Christian ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ (Jesus being fairly comfortable with difficult political realities) ought to be the guide. The two greatest commandments ‘Love God and Love your Neighbour’ are intertwined. Therefore Christians are to love Islam and secular humanism, with its high profile in fighting justice and equality, and the great values they embody. Indeed, we have to build a shared society together would seem to be Julian’s overriding message. He suggested that extreme Christian views can militate against this - proponents of the gospel can be off-putting if high profile court cases take a stand against equality in society, for instance. Julian ended by asserting that Jesus was a Humanist, and we need to show our values together.
Show less
Peter Cave
Peter was next to speak, and picking up on the question of values asked ‘does the meta-value which enhances the quality of our society come from the secular humanist or the religious side?’ For Peter this was a rhetorical question. He asserted that we should have some values imposed on us (if we are not be at the mercy of rape, pillage, murder etc), and was keen to disassociate Humanism from any charge of relativism, subjectivism or nihilism. Peter went on to explore ‘What are religious values? What are secular values?
Show more
He referred to the ‘Elephant in the Room’, which for him is that values are not the sole province of Jesus Christ, and that millions of Christians and Muslims – because of their faith – have horrendous values, and argued that therefore it is not helpful to talk of religious values – this will get us nowhere. Peter mentioned various actions sanctioned by some Christian groups such as girls being killed in Africa if suspected of having devil within, hell-mongering, and some Muslim groups killing apostates and stoning adulteresses. Peter acknowledged in his talk that Atheism is not neutral, and has performed many horrors for the glory of the state.
Peter re-affirmed, as a result of the above, his commitment to the need for values – but asserted that we ought not to look to the Bible, the Qur’an or Revelation, but to turn to humanity in looking for our values. He asserted his conviction that when moderate religious people and secularists agree with each other, we are bringing our humanity to bear, and ignoring parts of the Qur’an and Bible. We are showing – and sharing – our awareness that there are many moral dilemmas. The difficulty is that these genuine dilemmas all get different answers depending on which part of the Bible or the interpretation one looks at. A strong concern for Peter was the use of ancient texts such the Bible and Qur’an. He argued that it is difficult to argue with (perceived) omnipotence, and suggested we consider the exhortation of E.M. Forster ‘Only Connect’. To conclude, Peter exhorted us to distinguish between values we have as a human being, and those which are imposed upon us.
Show less
Ibrahim Mogra
Ibrahim’s response was a strong assertion that he feels that as a Muslim he has a slight advantage in following the common universal human values we all share, as he is encouraged to put these into practice and encouraged that his Creator commands him to do this. Ibrahim argued that the belief in reward for doing this, is the push and some people might need this when tempted to overlook the needs of their fellow human beings.
Show more
It was plain to me in the audience, that Julian and Ibrahim were together in their desire for religious and humanist people to work together, and that while all three panellists had been equally concerned about extremists, Peter was more sceptical that religion could have something to offer over and above the common humanist values that we share.
With audience participation, we then explored the messages of the panellists, initially concentrating on Peter’s strong assertions that dialogue with religious people can be difficult since there are no core religious values which have not been hi-jacked by religious extremists. We enjoyed what for me was a very fruitful exploration of differences, which explored the relationship of Atheism to philosophy. Peter strongly denied that Atheism is confined to Utilitarian values (which of course are incompatible with Christianity due to the emphasis upon ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ – for the Christian, and I dare say the Muslim too, social justice can never be reduced to a numbers game in any society, it cuts across what Julian highlighted as core concerns of the gospel in his opening gambit), and explained that far from being a relativistic belief system (a reiterated theme of Peter’s) the ranks of Atheists include Kantian deontologists, and Virtue Ethicists.
Ibrahim argued in this respect that we need to distinguish between values and the law, certainly in the application of Muslim laws in certain Muslim countries. He cited the example of Islamic values which permit abortion in the case of rape, and severe health implications for the mother.
Show less
We then returned to the theme of the difficulties of using religious texts, and Peter (tongue in cheek) invited (moderate!) religious people to join the Humanists – he doesn’t mind if they moonlight by reading the Bible and the Qur’an, as long as they recognise that their core values are derived from our humanity. It was suggested that religious people do not rely solely on texts to guide them in their moral behaviour but also on practices like regular prayer and meditation, and the use of religious language such as God the Compassionate which constantly – day by day, hour by hour, reminds us of how we ought to behave towards our fellow human beings.
Show more
Peter articulated the humanist concern for general welfare, liberty and free speech as core values. Ibrahim explored the values of the initial Islamic community around the Prophet. Before Muhammad (pbuh) common universal values were NOT upheld, especially as women were not allowed to have property, regarded as dirty, and infanticide was freely practised. The initial Islamic community therefore encouraged universal human values, and reinforced these by emphasising that humans are answerable to a greater power, and further will be rewarded for values which reflect right dealings with others.
Peter picked up on Ibrahim’s contention that reward is held out to the Muslim, and suggested that to be truly moral one cannot be motivated by reward. Julian countered with the Christian hymn by Cowper which exhorts us to do things not for the sake of reward; Ibrahim suggested this is not to do with reading scripture, but of what is in the heart and head. Audience discussion included reference to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development which suggests that while some have internalised good values and can act upon them, there will always be human beings in every sphere of life who need the idea of reward to motivate them. Others in the audience echoed this concern for right motivation, and the example of Mother Theresa was given as she asserted that her concern for the poor was her way of showing her love for God. Others felt that for them this was not a problem, as Mother Theresa said that she could only do these tasks of washing and caring for those dying in the gutter unloved and unwanted –a task moreover left vacant by others! – because of the strength she gained from taking the Sacrament daily. It was argued that it may be a counsel of perfection to have the right motivation, but is it also important for those jobs to be actually done?
For Julian, the meta-value Christianity offers is that of subversion, of challenging the norms of a society where many no longer seek to care for their neighbour. Without this element of neighbour-love, he contends, we have lost religion. Marianne interjected at this point to remind us that the root of the word religion is to bind together After a ‘comfort break’, Julian re-articulated the question, and the urgency of the need for both religious and secular people to work together against the evils of extremism in all its forms, and to work for social justice for the poor and marginalised in the public arena. He asked how – given that we can only have a conversation with those people who are in the room, who are all moderate – we can work through the conversation. He offered the example of Christian-Muslim dialogue, who despite being divided confessionally and credally divided manage to talk to one another. How do moderate religious people relate to abhorrent religions?, he asked. How then should religious and humanist people create a conversation and do dialogue with each other? Julian suggested that this can only come about if we allow each other to be what we are, without saying we all must be the same as me.
One area where the conversation could go, Peter suggested, was with reference to particular cases – working together on voluntary euthanasia for example. However he highlighted that the problem here was in use of language; as a Humanist he feels excluded by the use of religious language as it has no significance for him whatsoever. Ibrahim would want to engage with his religious hat on, as if the religious person leaves his religion at home then part of their identity is not there. For him, the debate cannot confine terminology to secular expressions, as who we are, we need to engage with whatever moral code of conduct we have and whatever challenging things we have to discuss. Therefore we can discuss terms such as autonomy, and slippery slope, but the Muslim needs to wear the Islamic hat when referring to the Qur’an, and needs to be free to do so, to be authentic. Ibrahim pointed out that while he doesn’t accept, for example, Julian’s Christianity, it never stops him dialoguing with him when he quotes from the Bible. Likewise, dialogue with Humanists he would hope, would not stop when he quotes scripture.
Julian asked how, when conversation gets blocked, can we in a small experimental way find ways of unblocking it? He acknowledged that when people slam scripture down and say this is the final word, this can create blockage. Peter responded by saying that he can understand and engage when, for example some of the Bishops in the euthanasia debate, cite empirical evidence, but not when they assert that human life is sacred. Julian acknowledged that this is a problem, but believes this may be political. Religious figures like the Bishops in the House of Lords are making a political argument using religious language. He disagrees with the Bishops, yet acknowledges they are able to speak for a religious constituency.
It was agreed between Julian and Ibrahim that dialogue can sometimes be most difficult among our own ilk – which is why Ibrahim suggests we have so little intra-Islamic dialogue. Yet as he observes, it is not about ‘them and us’ – we need to accommodate each other. We cannot impose an Islamic ruling on a secular system. It is like having two different languages – we wouldn’t bring Islamic language onto the secular scene, but if we are debating with Islamic scholars we would quote chapter and verse, he said. We need to work together towards eliminating hostility towards religions in the public sphere.
Peter wonders why more Christians do not actively work against abortion, if they believe that life begins at conception – why do more Christians not chain themselves to the railings outside abortion clinics. Julian suggested there is a difference between people acting out their convictions, and imposing their own convictions.
Show less
Barbara Usher
Some Reflections
I am grateful to Barbara Usher (one of the Forum’s volunteers) for producing the above account which captures much of what was said. I am all too conscious that the conversation was only beginning and that we are not quite on a level playing field together, in fact sometimes we are trying to argue the other team off the pitch!
Written by Barbara Usher, edited by Julian Bond
