Faith Week- What is faith about?

It is Faith Week on Publicfesto.

People come and go to talk about the religion they belong to, to express their beliefs, values and comment about some rites. As much as I find Religious Studies fascinating and I have studied religions at University, I see them through the same lens I use when studying the ancient Egypt Gods and the ancient Greek mythology. They teach me a lot about humanity, about culture, but I am not too sure that they teach me anything about God.
However, despite my total scepticism and ambivalence towards established religions, I still feel a kind of faith, I still believe that there is more to life that the pure materiality of this table or of Bill Gates’ bank account. I am part of these people who claim they are ‘spiritual but not religious’.

…Is Religion all about morality?…

Tenants of organised religions would argue to such free thinkers as myself, that there is no morality without religion. Religion provides society with a code of conduct, a set of behaviours. Hence it helps society to function in an orderly fashion. However, they are wrong, for it is perfectly possible to live a perfectly moral life without any religion. This is what philosophy and particularly ethics is all about. 

Furthermore in modern societies, morality has evolved. Religious moral has become fairly disassociated from social evolutions. Some may argue that this is a sign of how decadent we have all become. Personally, I would argue that it is immoral to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, immoral to forbid women from priesthood, immoral to discriminate against gays.


…Should religion have an impact on the law of the land?

I appreciate that all religious teaching have a very constructive part. That they can embody some of our most beautiful values as a species: love, compassion, respect, humility, charity, etc. However, people who present themselves as religious often go well beyond the call of personal development. Missionary activities are paramount to all religions. In modern societies, the main goal still seems to be impacting on the law of the land.13,000 letters opposig gay marriage have been read in British Catholic churches. It also takes the form of political militantism as, for instance, very violent anti-abortion actions in the US show.

The most extreme form of religion having too much of an impact on the whole of societies conduct and laws, is found through theocraties. At that stage, it is clear that religion is no longer a tool for personal growth but has become an oppressive prison. This is why a true spiritualist will also be a secularist.


…Too many gods, too many religions?

For the sceptic, there is another problem. If there really is one or some transcendental forces, how could all religions be true at the same time and how could the rational mind know which religion is the one? Or is it that none of them is? The truth would be forever unreachable.

However, it would also be pretty reasonable to assume that each religion would have stemmed from a particular cultural heritage and would give some insights into the spiritual Truth. Therefore, trying to build bridges between beliefs, finding what may be of interest in the others, but also being ready to challenge ones beliefs, may be a path towards unity and truth. In that respect, syncretism which is the way people pick and mix religious beliefs is usually negatively seen whereas oecumenism has been positively received. 

Nowadays, our earth has been dubbed the global village because economy and politics have gone international. Some people fear globalisation and seek new ways of belonging to smaller communities. To those, strict religious boundaries may feel like a protection. Others embrace this new era and try to develop a globalised spiritual understanding and a globalised faith. This can be done through the resurgence of pagan beliefs. (to be followed)

Women and politics

We could argue a lot about where and when democracy started and we would be at loss to name the first ever male to be elected to a political office. However, we can be absolutely certain that the first woman ever elected to a national legislature in any Western democracy was Jeanette Rankin. In 1916, she was elected to the US congress. Everywhere in the world, when democratic revolutions and reforms happened, men were the first to reap the benefits. Women always had to fight very hard to get the same benefits and entitlements. Nowadays however, in all democratic countries, women have the same political rights as men have: they can vote, they can be party members, they can stand for elections.

Yet only less than 20% of world wide elected members of parliaments are female. Only two countries have at least 50% of female MPs: Rwanda and Andorra. As expected, Scandinavian countries top the OECD list with around 40% of female MPs. Germany is at 32%, France is n°36 at 26.9%, the UK is n°57 at 22.3% and the US n°79 at 16.9%.

Why are women so under-represented in politics?
Some 'Mars and Venus' theoricians may think that women are not that into politics and have other interests. However, upon closer inspection, that does not hold up to the facts. Statistics show that if you look at party membership and at grassroot involvement, women are very present at that level. Women are definitely interested in politics and into contributing to the political debate. So, why are they so few at leadership level?

There is a certain 'with the boys' culture with certain sexist codes and stereotypes that may be hard to break into. Some argue that society is not going to change easily and that the law should make it easier for women to be elected through positive discrimination and quota. Others think that those are phoney measures and that merit alone should be considered when selecting candidates. But is merit really the only factor at play?

Networking is very important if you want to have a career, particularly so in politics. It often involves going out. It requires out of business hours time. To have a high flying career in politics as well as in any other area, you need a total commitment, you need to be available nearly 24/7. It is impossible to analyse the gender imbalance in the power sphere without, at the same time, having a look at the gender imbalance in the domestic sphere. There is a persisting inequality at home. Women still do the biggest share of home chores and childcare.

Countries where the equality at home is the greatest are countries where family policies have been introduced. In Sweden for instance, families get more maternity allowance if, after the new birth, they share their maternity/paternity leave equally between the mother and the father. Childcare is also highly subsidised. When Thora Arnorsdottir ran for Iceland presidency in June 2012, her partner was looking after their new born. He was going to become a house husband had she won the election. In the meantime, one of the most powerful and respected political figure of contemporary times is Angela Merkel. And she is... ... child free.

One or two things from Eurosceptic land

As lots of us feel excited and energised by the European project and European construction, lots of other people, maybe more and more of them, given the current circumstances, feel very strongly against it. They call themselves Eurosceptic and their British idol is Nigel Farage. I have spent a fair amount of my time debating with them, going through most of their arguments, tirelessly challenging, deconstructing, rebuffing myths, clichés and downright lies. I have also learnt a great deal through these exchanges as some of their points are valid. And as a result I feel that I have accumulated enough material to write a blog mini-series on the subject.  Each piece will be about one of the Eurosceptics’ arguments.

First and foremost: CULTURAL MINDSET AND IDENTITY

A win-lose mindset

When asked about the reasons for their opposition to the European project and institution by far the most recurrent one comes as loss of sovereignty. Now there may be actual legal and institutional reality in that statement and we will be going through this at a later stage. However what always strikes me is the sheer emotional intensity in which it usually is expressed. According to the on-line Oxford dictionary, sovereignty means:

1-Supreme power or authority

2-The sovereignty of Parliament

3-The authority of a state to govern itself or another state to govern itself or another state

4-A self-governing body

Intellectually they mean 2-4, but truly it seems that the British Eurosceptics’ major grievance with Europe lays in 1- So loss of sovereignty can be rewritten as loss of power and authority. Surely the British can’t be anti-Europe purely on the grounds that they are set in a WIN-LOSE mindset and that co-operation is not really their cup of tea?

The Empire

In his interview with Colin Crouch (The European magazine 26.03.2012), Martin Eiermann mentions: “It strikes me as a rhetoric that clings to the idea of British dominance despite the geopolitical shifts of the past 60 years”. Later on in the same interview Colin Crouch links modern British national identity to the Empire. The Empire may have gone a long time ago however a fair number of Brits are holding onto its last remains: the Queen and the Commonwealth.

WW2

Another piece of the British past glory puzzle is World War 2. History is sadly not part of the compulsory secondary curriculum. The British have developed a very romantic idealisation of the war which, if not entirely false, is taking a few liberties with the truth (for instance the role of Stalin has totally disappeared to mention only one). It can be summarised in an “we are holier than the rest of Europe” attitude. In that blitz mythology the British become white knights saving (nearly alone) the rest of Europe against evil, foolishness, laziness and cowardice. That brings me to my last point.

Islander mentality
The British strive to be very tolerant and accepting people, which they truly are to a certain extent. They tend to consider their neighbours like the French as more racist and intolerant than themselves. It is, however, interesting to note that this acceptance seems only granted to the beings living on their shores as in their own immigrants. All outsiders, those who do not live in Britain, are seen as foreign as in strange and unfamiliar. According to the urban dictionary the islander mentality is a psychological state… a belief in one’s culture superiority possibly due to their actual geography.

A country looking at the past… fearing the future?
This past, seen as full of brilliance and glory, seems to get in the way of understanding the present and planning for the future. There is an aching denial of the impact that globalisation is having on all of the European countries’ capacity to influence world events.

Scottish independence: what would the international consequences be?

Scottish independence: what would the international consequences be?

1-With regards to the EU, would other member states welcome Scotland within their group?

It was first believed that some other European countries would veto the membership on the grounds of their own nationalist movements which they would not want to encourage. For instance Spain would not want want Catalonia or the Basque country to follow suit. However Spain and other EU member states have confirmed that they would not veto a Scottish membership.

2-The legallity of membership.

Legally the UK is a member state. Experts seem to think that Scotland would not automatically gain membership upon independence and would need to go through the process all over again. What about the remaining UK though? It could be argued that they may also be considered a new country and would need to re-apply for membership. In that instance, this could be the perfect opportunity for re-negotiation of membership or leaving the EU altogether.

3-What would the people of Scotland want?

Would the Scottish people want to be part of the EU? Is the whole point of the nationalist movement not INDEPENDENCE? Why leave one union to join another? Another subject is the one of currency. The opponents of the euro always argued that there cannot be common currency where there is no fiscal union. if they are consistent they are likely to refuse to share the pound sterling with an independant Scotland. The euro does not seem a likely choice given its current woes. How practical would it be, however, to create a new currency from scratch? On these 2 issues of membership and currency the new Scottish government would certainly need to have another referendum.

4-Relationship with the wider world.

Scotland would need to negotiate a new seat at the UN and would certainly be expected to contribute to the IMF. They would also need embassies and consulates all over the world staffed with a new Scottish diplomatic service. They will also need to establish their own passport system and have their own customs and borders officials. The cost of implementing all these changes and paying all these new public servants would certainly be very high. The remainder of the UK would have a smaller GDP. It would possibly no longer be part of the G8 and would not be seen as a major world player anymore. It would lose whatever influence and power it still has in our instable and changing world.