Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kyle Victor

GET UPDATES FROM Kyle Victor
 

Shame on David Cameron: His 'Christian Nation' Comments Evoke Parallels to American Religious Demagogues Like Rick Perry

Posted: 19/12/11 00:12 GMT

For a moment last week, I felt like I was back in the United States.

When the prime minister proclaimed last week that "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible," he reminded me so starkly of the arrogant populism and gleeful deceit with which American politicians routinely discuss religion. I thought that such pathetic attempts to score points with religious voters were more suited to the likes of Rick Perry than to David Cameron, but I was wrong.

So let me answer this argument directly: Cameron, and those in America who agree with him, are flat-out wrong.

The values which define modern Britain and modern America are not Biblical values. They are profoundly secular. Foremost among these values must be democracy, the bedrock of Western civilisation. Democracy is conspicuously absent from the Bible. There is nothing democratic about the idea that God dictated a set of rules to us that we must obey without question, without consent, and without the possibility of change. And it must therefore come as no surprise that the Bible has consistently been the enemy of accountable citizen-government, from the infallible Papacy to the divine right of kings. Rather, democracy is the product of the rationalist, secular Enlightenment that questioned authority and rejected blind faith.

What about tolerance? Is this not a fundamental British and American value? It is surely not a Biblical value: not of a book that orders the execution of those who choose to leave the religion. Or those who have sex outside of marriage. Or those who pursue relations with a member of the same sex. And what about free expression? Surely not the value of a Bible that instructs its followers on what not to wear, what not to eat, what not to say, and what not to even think. Again, these are secular values, the products of our modern rational morality, and unquestionably count as defining ideals of Western society.

The values which Cameron actually referred to in his speech- "responsibility, hard work, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love, price in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another"- do not originate in the Bible. While they may appear in its pages, these are not Biblical values. They are universal human values that stem from our innate sense of morality and our capacity to reason. They pre-date the Old and New Testaments (and the Book of Mormon too), and they find a welcoming home among non-Christians and non-believers just as often.

But the most important point of all is this: why does Cameron brag about values like "compassion" and "honouring the social obligations we have to one another" when his government has consistently undermined these ideals? How has this government demonstrated "compassion" by saddling young people with £27,000 worth of debt from tuition loans or by cutting public sector pensions? This is particularly interesting because the same phenomenon exists in the Presidential race in America: the Republicans candidates claim in one breath to be compassionate Christians, but then in the next breath they promise to repeal Obama's (very modest) extension of health insurance, to cut job seekers' benefits, and to end foreign aid donations.

So shame on David Cameron for hypocritically using religious talk to buy public support for his flaying of the welfare state. Shame on him for misrepresenting both what the Bible actually says and what truly makes Western civilisation special. Shame on him for encouraging racism and xenophobia against those who don't fit into the 'Christian Nation' mould. And shame on him for stooping to the level of the Republicans in America that I am sadly accustomed to.

 
For a moment last week, I felt like I was back in the United States. When the prime minister proclaimed last week that "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible," he reminded me so star...
For a moment last week, I felt like I was back in the United States. When the prime minister proclaimed last week that "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible," he reminded me so star...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
SecularAdvocate
Media Watcher
12:46 AM on 01/04/2012
Indeed. Naked hypocrisy. Perhaps Mr Cameron would like to point out where it says in the Bible that democracy is fundamental to all society. He'll struggle. The Bible and the Church have no interest in democracy whatsoever. And neither, really, does the Tory party. Like the Church, Tories are simply greedy for naked power and out to achieve it in any way they can. If they think a sneaky appeal to Christian virtues will advance their cause, they'll give it a go. What they are really in pursuit of, of course, is keeping their class's snouts at the front of the queue for the trough.

Their greed knows no bounds.
09:00 PM on 12/25/2011
Kyle,
I am sooooo impressed. Your writing is focused and incisive. Another reason to be proud that I know you and proud of you! Have a great week with your mom, Randy and Sophie.

Mara
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Compassionnotreligion
Be awed & humbled by nature & empathy -not Juju.
11:27 AM on 12/20/2011
Cameron has done humanity a great favour by his comments. Because it has caused debate - and that is the ultimate anathma to religions, because they hate rational enquiry. Any ideology that suppresses enquiry has to be deeply suspect.

Religion so hates enquiry that it would rather kill. Islam is doing it even now, but christianity in all its forms has done it freely in the past - and boasted about it.

So people brave enough to speak up like Kyle Victor, Dawkins, Hitchen et al, together with decency and DEBATE debate debate will cause the demise of religion. Because something built a on carrot and stick approach (in other words bribery and blackmail) to elicit an appeasement of a vain, callous, erratic imaginary friend can never be noble. Much more noble is something nice done for natural human empathy with no expectation of a reward, other than a warm glow!

The term 'atheist' will be no longer needed one day - as it will be like 'abolitionist' - the default sane state of decency. One relying on natural human compassion rather than the appeasement of a callous, egotistical and erratic imaginary friend.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kevin Mcilroy
04:22 PM on 12/20/2011
While I agree with you that the Abrahamic religions have to answer for a lot of evil done in their name, I think that sometimes Richard Dawkins can be as bad - he is often quoted in ways that make him appear as a dogmatic anti-theist and does his cause no good at all. He insults people who have a belief in something he has not, maybe in time he will come to realise the error of his ways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Compassionnotreligion
Be awed & humbled by nature & empathy -not Juju.
06:01 PM on 12/20/2011
I too normally prefer a cordiality. But aren’t there are times when directness, even rudeness, is called for? I suggest “A lesson from Hitch” in the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/a-lesson-from-hitch-when-rudeness-is-called-for/2011/12/18/gIQAV6xz2O_blog.html

Religions have VAST resources - of marketers (clerics, priests etc), are the richest landowners on earth, have vast coffers, tentacles in government so get tax exemption and subsidies, and direct their own self-interests, have scheduled regular media platforms on BBC and other major networks…

…And then one academic. With none of the above privileges and resources.

His hard-won platform is one of the few means atheists have to counter the tsunami of religious ones. The media simply do not report atheist voices, unless they can find this kind of angle. Nicely-nicely doesn’t work, because the other side plays dirty, and has all the power.

Talk about a david and goliath situation!

So I respectfully disagree with you. We (the rational) are supposed to show respect for any belief, almost however ludricrous. It may make sense to respect the person and have empathy with those without education/ resource (what hardships they might have endured, social pressures etc), but that doesn't mean respecting their beliefs – that, least we forget, continue murder, rape, stoning, mental and physical abuse of women & children etc etc) !

A few strong words for their sake is hardly something we should shy away from!
12:19 AM on 12/22/2011
Mr. Mcilroy,

I find that I cannot sympathise with the position you've articulated here.

If you truly believe, as you say, that "Abrahamic religions have to answer for a lot of evil," then you should have much bigger concerns on your mind than Richard Dawkins' tone. Strident as it may be, I don't think you can argue with a straight face that it compares even remotely with the atrocities committed in the name of God. You portray atheists as the world's biggest party-poopers, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to stop everyone else's fun when the party involves flying planes into buildings.

As for your point about bullying, I have two responses. First, what Dawkins does is NOT bullying. Arguing that someone is wrong or that their beliefs are unjustified is not the same as bullying them. When a Republican and a Democrat debate each other, they're not bullying each other, even if they do force each other to reconsider deeply held beliefs. If one happens to be much smarter or a much better debater, he/she isn't bullying their opponent, they're just arguing well! If atheists were actually bullying the religious, it would involve things like intimidation, stalking, violence, etc. That's what bullying is, and to be honest, I think atheists are victims of this more often than the religious are.
04:51 AM on 12/20/2011
Great blog. Looking forward to more of these, Mr. Victor.

MP