WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Julia Neuberger, Linda Woodhead, Lisa Appignanesi, Maleiha Malik, Michael Nazir-Ali and Peter Jones. It focuses on the issues surrounding religious freedom.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, and religion and society. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
On the one hand, how much freedom should religious people and groups have to express their convictions? On the other hand, how much freedom should there be for others to express convictions which may be hostile or insulting to religion and religious people? In both cases, where do we draw the line, who decides and how?
Conclusions from the debate
There is a majority democratic consensus, expressed in part through legislation, which sets limits on religious (and secular) freedoms. Where religious expressions do not cross this line (e.g. display of religious symbols) freedom should be unrestricted. Where they do (e.g. refusing to conduct civil partnerships for gay couples), negotiation amongst the parties involved may be able to reach an accommodation or compromise. Mechanisms for such negotiation may need to be strengthened. There may also be cases where religious people can refuse to act against the democratic consensus on grounds of conscience, but there may be a price to be paid (e.g. those who cannot work on Sundays make up time elsewhere; conscientious objectors in war contribute in other ways).
Research Findings
The issue has come to a head recently because of a number of controversial rulings under new equality legislation in which the duty of equal treatment (especially on grounds of sexuality) has clashed with the exercise of religious freedom (e.g. when a Christian registrar refused to marry gay or lesbian couples on grounds of conservative Christian conscience).
The focus of religious freedom debates has shifted in the last decade from controversy over the right of Muslim women to veil to controversy over the right of Christians to display religious symbols and act (or refuse to act) on the grounds of their faith.
Controversy is currently being stoked by two extreme minority groups: aggressively secular groups on the one hand; aggressively conservative Christian groups on the other. The majority population, both religious and secular, is more ready to reach compromises and accommodations.
There are three separable issues in this debate:
the freedom of religious individuals
the freedom of religious groups
free expression which may involve insult to religion
Cases being brought under Equality Law have to do with (A). Some exemptions from equality legislation have been granted to religious groups (B).
With regard to (A) the question is how far this freedom extends, and whether it ever gives grounds for not obeying a law, or flouting majority opinion and sensibility. What rights can be granted minority views, and who bears the cost of individuals or groups acting against a majority position on the grounds of conscience?
With regard to the freedom to insult religion (C), where insults do not amount to incitement to religious hatred, this can only be a matter of voluntary restraint rather than legislation. Recent cases of ‘censorship ‘ (e.g. closure of the play Behzti which insulted some Sikhs, or the Mayor of London’s refusal to allow Christian anti-gay advertising on buses) seem arbitrary (why not stop other things which insult e.g. Jerry Springer the Opera which was insulting to Christians?) suggesting that the threat of public protest on the part of those who are ‘offended’ is more influential than consistently applied standards (e.g. respect for those whose deeply-held beliefs are being insulted).
After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 18 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Linda Woodhead, Ed Husain, Marat Shterin, Mark Sedgwick, Matthew Francis and Mehdi Hasan. It focuses on the issues surrounding radicalisation, with particular reference to Islam.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. For extension work students should look at the different meanings of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism. They might also consider the life of e.g. Adolf Hitler, as a case study, because of the ‘positive’ impact of Mengele’s work on genetics.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society and Islam. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
What is ‘radicalisation’ or ‘extremism’? Is it unique to Islam? Is it always religious? Is it a new and unique phenomenon, or just a new label for certain forms of terrorist violence? And what can research tell us about its causes and how to prevent it?
Conclusions from the debate
As currently used ‘radicalisation’ often includes too much and too little. Too little, because it focuses attention only on Islamic or religious forms of terrorism, and too much because radical ideas and ‘Islamism’ do not usually lead to violence and are too widespread for security initiatives to counter (attempts may be counter-productive).
As for what causes recent incidences of extremist violence, there is a growing consensus that there are multiple causes including: a sense of grievance and isolation, belief that violence can remedy a perceived problem, and contact with networks and images that glorify the use of violence.
Research Findings
‘Radicalisation’ is a new word, but the process whereby groups and individuals with religious or secular commitments turn violent is not new, and past and present research, e.g. that on New Religious Movements and various forms of terrorism, should not be ignored.
What needs to be explained (and countered) is not the embrace of radical ideas, which is widespread and always has been, e.g. communism, but why some groups and individuals embrace violence, which is rare.
It is impossible and often counter-productive for states and their security forces to counter radical ideas. This does not mean that extremist beliefs do not need to be contested, but there are more effective ways to do this, e.g., good education, including in religion and theology, and active initiatives in civil society.
Violence is always over-determined – there are multiple causes, many paths, and no single ‘conveyor belt’ to violence. There are situational, strategic, social and individual causes. This means that the move to violence can be explained in retrospect, but not accurately predicted in advance (two people with exactly the same circumstances may act violently in one case and not in another).
One dynamic observed in some of the research is the existence of an ‘us-and them’ (minority/majority) mentality combined with a sense of grievance. If the ‘minority’ then starts to attract criticism and repression by agents of ‘the majority’ this can lead to a vicious cycle of escalation.
The importance of (individual) belief as a driver of action tends to be overestimated. Involvement in social networks is arguably more important. Also important and underestimated is access to images, aesthetics, cultures and practices of violence which are not exclusively Islamicist but can be harnessed to Islamist ideas – as well as to anti-Muslim ideas.
There is no evidence to support the reality of ‘brainwashing’, nor of de-programming or de-radicalisation where these are equated with quick processes which bypass normal modes of socialisation, cognition and volition.
Practical Suggestions
‘Radicalisation’ includes too much. The holding of radical, intolerant attitudes, is widespread in all societies. It is the move to violence which needs to be understood and countered.
Counter-radicalisation policies have spread the net too wide. This is both ineffective and can be counter-productive when it engenders an us / them mentality and sense of grievance in a ‘target’ community.
Counter-radicalisation should follow established counter-terrorism pathways, which rely on gathering good intelligence and looking in a focused way for indications of interest in violence, involvement in networks advocating such violence, and other indicators of a move to violent action.
It is not the business of the state to prescribe or proscribe particular theologies, any more than particular political ideologies – so long as they operate within the law. It is, however, legitimate to educate and argue against false beliefs.
The model of human behaviour which holds that beliefs are the ‘drivers’ of action is misleading; practices, emotions and relationships are just as important as beliefs.
After watching the discussion, students should revisit their views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 22 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
AQA – Religious Studies A: Unit 2; Religious Studies B: Unit 2
Edexcel – Religious Studies Units 1-7
OCR – Religious Studies A: B604; Religious Studies B: B603
WJEC – Religious Studies A: Units 1, 3, 6-8; Religious Studies B: Unit 2
A Level
AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit C, A2 Unit 3A
Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4
OCR – Religious Studies: Unit G572
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Abdul Majid Katme, David Albert Jones, Gerard Hughes, John Harris and Linda Woodhead. It focuses on stem cell research and abortion.
The poll carried out prior to the debate shows that an increasing majority of people in the UK are in support of abortion:
YouGovThose in favour of:
2005
2011
2012
2013
Raising or retaining 24 week limit
29
42
39
46
Reducing the 24 week limit
43
37
37
28
Banning abortions altogether
12
6
6
7
Don’t know
16
15
17
19
Students could be given the same questions as used in this poll and others which can be found in the pdf (see below) and asked to vote on them prior to watching the debate, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds.
All the people polled were 18+ so it could be worth comparing both the initial and final views of students with the YouGov results to see if there are any indications that young people, possibly more ‘modern’ in their outlook, give very different answers to the questions.
This programme is suitable for use with A level and GCSE students studying ethics, medical ethics, religion and science and sexual ethics.
The debate is suitable for high-performing GCSE students though may need explanation.
A projected summary and conclusion of the statistics produced is:
There are essentially two groups
– Pro-life anti-abortionists
Bare life
– Pro-life pro-abortionists
Fulfilled life
Not a religious / secular issue, but between two competing understandings of ‘life’
The debate focuses mainly on the question of when life begins. The distinction drawn here is between a human being and a human person. It is argued that the foetus becomes a human being and is recognisable as such but does not become a human person until it is able to function as a person with related senses etc. There is some discussion of ensoulment from a Muslim viewpoint. Questions are also raised about abortion following rape, a pregnancy which can harm the mother and also a foetus which is known to have severe disabilities or other conditions which may seriously limit its quality of life.
The law on stem cell research is also discussed and to what extent it could or should be changed.
After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. For extension work students might consider how these ideas might affect different Christian denominations e.g. Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for younger students it might be advisable to watch each segment at a time (there are clear breaks between each part). After discussion, it would then be worth watching the two-minute summary below to clarify and crystalize the thoughts and views expressed.
This is a Faith debate featuring Aaquil Ahmed, Charles Clarke, Cole Moreton, Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead. It focuses on the main trends in religion and values in Britain.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. Extension work could focus on multicultural / superdiverse, responses and trends.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, and religion and society. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
How has religion in Britain changed since 1945? What are the main differences between the 1950s, the 1980s and the 2010s, and what are the continuities? How does all this relate to wider social trends? How are these changes being reflected in the media and what part might be played by social media?
Conclusions from the debate
There are significant continuities, including the fact that a half to two-thirds of the population still identify as Christian, and the churches continue to play an important role in society. However, the overall profile of religion in the UK – and of Christianity and the churches – has become far more diverse. Most importantly, the form of religion and the way in which people are religious has changed: there is much more individual choice and selection, less traditional ‘belonging’, and religion supports a much wider range of identities.
Research Findings
The myth of secular progress received a series of shocks from 1979 (Iranian revolution) through 1989 (fall of communism) to 2001 (twin towers attack) which revealed the limitations and blind spots of a perspective which held that religion would inevitably decline and that the rest of the world would follow where secular Europe had led.
The religious profile of the UK has changed significantly, and change has been most evident since the 1980s:
the historic churches have suffered severe decline (attendance has more than halved since the 1980s)
the overall profile of the Christian churches has changed: there are now more Baptist and independent church goers than there are Anglicans or Roman Catholics
non-Christian faiths have grown in numbers and profile, with Islam being the largest. These are not merely ‘imports’, but take distinctive forms in the British context
alternative spirituality has grown dramatically since the 1980s, and its wide influence is most evident in the world of holistic or alternative healthcare (‘mind, body and spirit’)
numbers identifying as ‘non-religious’ have grown, though not all of these are secular (some also identify as ‘spiritual’). Atheists remain small in numbers, but are increasingly vocal in the media and public debate.
Overall, the religious and secular profile of the UK has become increasingly diverse since 1945. It is not merely that there are more ‘religions’, but there is much greater diversity of religious identity, even in relation to the same religion.
Maybe, as always, after watching the discussion, students should also consider Islamophobia and Muslim teachings on equality.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 24 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
This is a Faith Interview featuring Sir Tony Baldry, Masooda Bano, Peter Herriot, Maajid Nawaz, Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Christianity, Christian thought, Islam and religion and society.
In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:
To what extent does religion cause conflict?
Why do some religious people turn to extremism?
Should extremists be allowed to practice their beliefs and influence others?
What is the best way in which moderates can deal with hardliners?
All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.
How can religious moderates deal better with uncompromising hardliners and the conflicts they cause?
Creating difference and conflict is the religious fundamentalist’s “raison d’être”, according to Peter Herriot at the fourth Westminster Faith Debate of the year. The panel of politicians and academics broadly agreed that religious moderates need to do more to tackle this challenge, but there was some disagreement about how this can be done in the (at times heated) discussion.
The debate was certainly timely. On Saturday 29th March the first same-sex marriages were legalised in the UK – an issue which polarised opinions within the Church of England, with those Anglicans who oppose the move becoming increasingly vocal in public discourse. As we saw in our first Faith Debate of the year, conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa following the Arab Spring are often portrayed along religious sectarian lines. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke opened the discussion by emphasising that the media’s focus on the “dramatic” positions of minority religious groups has led to a public “misunderstanding” of religion. How can religious moderates contest these misleading images, and deal with the conflicts caused by hard-line positions?
Debating these questions were Sir Tony Baldry, MP for Banbury and the Second Church Estates Commissioner; Masooda Bano, University Research Lecturer in Development Studies at the University of Oxford; Peter Herriot, former Professor of Psychology at City University and the author of several books on fundamentalism; and Maajid Nawaz, a former member of a global Islamist group and now Liberal Democrat candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, and co-founder and chairman of Quilliam, a global think tank focusing on such issues as religious freedom and extremism. Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Lancaster, chaired the debate.
Bano began by addressing an issue that recurred throughout the discussion – the importance of conceptual clarity. She challenged the language of the debate title, arguing that it is unhelpful to assume that religious ‘hardliners’ have a propensity to cause conflict and violence. Nawaz agreed with this, distinguishing between ‘religious conservatism’ and ‘fundamentalism’. Focusing on Islam, he defined fundamentalism as the adherence to a strict, single interpretation of religion, combined with an attempt to stereotype and “dehumanise” people of other views. ‘Islamism’ for him is the attempt to impose a particular interpretation on others, through either political or violent means. Religious moderates must be clear in the meanings of their terms to avoid surrendering to fundamentalists the terms of engagement. As an example, Nawaz argued that the Law Society’s recent recommendations concerning ‘Sharia succession rules’ were not only “patronising” but would play into the hands of fundamentalists by offering only one interpretation of Sharia. As he put it, “there is no one Muslim community, there is no ‘the Sharia’.”
Distinguishing between religious conservatism and fundamentalism enabled Bano and Nawaz to argue that armed conflict comes not from the nature of religion itself, but from the use of religion by extremists. Bano also emphasised the importance of the political and economic contexts out of which violent fundamentalists emerge. In the case of violent Muslim ‘jihadists’, a sense of “injustice” at political marginalisation, and a build-up of personal grievances, including the loss of family members, are crucial for motivating individual violence; but this can only be sustained in the long-term through the political support of states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. She noted, nonetheless, that religions could encourage “sacrificial” violence by offering believers “rewards”, in this world and the next.
Looking at the situation from a theoretical standpoint, Herriot explained the emergence of fundamentalist positions in terms of collective identity formation. He argued that every social system is a continuum ranging from “integration” to “differentiation”; at the latter end, fundamentalists emphasise above all their “difference” from both their co-religionists and people outside their tradition. Stressing difference is key: it enables them to treat outsiders as stereotypes, setting up an “us and them” conflict situation; it encourages the internalisation of a collective identity; and it paints the world as a “cosmic conflict”, in which the chosen few on the right side have to oppose everyone else. Later, Herriot suggested that in today’s society it is very “countercultural” to have, as fundamentalists do, a social rather than an individual identity as the centre of one’s being – and that part of our anxiety about fundamentalism may come from this.
Having set out their ideas about how religious conflicts can arise, the panellists offered suggestions about how, in Woodhead’s phrase, the “disorganised majority” should respond. Baldry stressed his belief in the “power of rational argument and discussion”, suggesting that the debate within the Church of England on women bishops had required methodologies akin to Middle Eastern peace talks. Considering Christian divisions, he questioned whether individuals are attracted to specific churches by their “particular practices and ambience”, and then adopt that church’s theology, or whether the attraction of the theology comes first. Asking this question could help identify those standpoints which different groups might be willing to compromise on, and other positions which are rooted in theological convictions that are unlikely to move. Nawaz suggested that what is needed is a much broader “cultural shift” to rebrand moderate positions. Reasoned arguments are not enough – religious moderates need to recapture media attention through deployment of dynamic liberal leaders, popular music, art, and other cultural symbols.
Herriot suggested that debate between moderates and fundamentalists is ultimately futile – it is “not much use inviting them round for tea and a nice chat”. If fundamentalists’ very identities are built on a sense of difference and a stereotyping of others, then it is unlikely they will be persuaded to see beyond those stereotypes. He stressed that religious moderates should avoid allowing fundamentalists to paint them into a role of a persecuting “enemy”. If religious extremists adopt the position of “victim”, they can claim political concessions from governments. Further, he suggested conceiving of fundamentalists less as enemies, and more as necessary “opportunity costs”. The “disorganised majority” should spend less time countering the opinions of fundamentalists, which might only give the latter more media coverage, and focus instead on attracting media attention to religiously moderate responses to social problems.
A final theme recurring in the discussion was authority within religions. While both Nawaz and Bano emphasised that the lack of central authority in Islam means that extreme interpretations can compete for legitimacy with moderate ones, Bano argued that Islam is not as “open to interpretation” as Nawaz suggested – in many places the ulama (legal scholars) and established tradition retain control over possible interpretations. In the UK, however, Clarke noted that the 2013 YouGov polls conducted by Woodhead and the Westminster Faith Debates show a clear discrepancy, across different religions, between the views of religious leaders and the rank and file. Because the media and politicians often focus on the views of religious leaderships, they easily misunderstand and misrepresent religious majorities and reinforce their silence.
In the midst of debate on many issues, there was agreement amongst the panel on the need to give a large voice to religious majorities, without silencing minorities. The balance needs to be more proportionate to their numbers. Woodhead pointed out that according to the Westminster Faith Debates YouGov polls, only 3.6% of the UK population fall into the ‘fundamentalism’ category – yet such individuals are given much more air space, and a huge role in dictating church policies. Religious moderates themselves need to step up to the challenge of dispelling current misconceptions about religion – and religious opinion – as a whole. This is a global task, and it is urgent.
As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. You might consider the impact of extremist views propagated by the media and the very small percentage of religious adherents who hold these according to the YouGov poll.
This is a Faith Interview featuring Bassma Kodmani, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Linda Woodhead, Shuruq Naguib and Toby Matthiesen.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Islam, religion and authority, religion and society and issues of war and peace.
In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:
What is the relationship between religion and politics?
Should religion and politics be kept separate?
What can religion contribute to politics and vice versa?
Is religion a danger to democracy and politics?
All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.
“Everyone is quoting God,” said Shuruq Naguib, speaking about the Arab Spring in the first Westminster Faith Debate of 2014.
The issue for debate was the causes of violent upheaval occurring across the Middle East and North Africa since 2010. The media often present “sectarian” religious division, particularly between Sunni and Shi’a, as the culprit. However, are the conflicts actually being driven by religious animosities? Most importantly, what can be done to achieve peace?
Taking part in the debate were Bassma Kodmani, director of the Arab Reform Initiative and former head of foreign relations of the Syrian National Council, Toby Matthiesen, Research Fellow in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, Shuruq Naguib, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Lancaster University, and Jack Straw, former Labour Foreign Secretary and MP for Blackburn. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.
Matthiesen began by downplaying the importance of religious belief in the Middle Eastern conflicts. While the media portrays an apocalyptic clash between religious rivals, observers should not be fooled by such “essentialising”. Three events were key to the current unrest: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which “changed the way the Shi’a saw themselves”, the Iraq War which began in 2003 and redrew the balance of power in the region, and the events of the Arab Spring itself. Insofar as religion was involved, Matthiesen mainly saw it as a political tool used by states and elites.
The manipulation of religious divisions by political regimes was a theme running through the debate. In Dr Kodmani’s view, corrupt rulers have been using religious establishments as a soft security device for decades.
For Naguib, however, a crisis of religious authority, particularly within Sunni Islam, is also a critical factor. She rooted this in postcolonial state-building. Newly independent states with nationalist agendas co-opted religious authorities to bolster support. The result is a crisis of legitimacy for traditional religious authorities. In Naguib’s view, organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are reacting as much against religious elites as against social injustice and political corruption.
This crisis of authority also involves conflict between different generations. Some young people, disillusioned by lack of employment and political voice, turn away from moderate religious figures to those who incite violence. Social media can play an important role here in spreading extreme views.
Woodhead drew parallels with a wider crisis of religious authority affecting all religions. Traditional leaders are questioned or ignored by new generations of believers who have increased access to religious knowledge, particularly through the internet.
The question “who speaks for Islam?” is linked to another: “who profits?” According to Matthiesen and Kodmani, religious conflicts have been stoked by corrupt regimes to undermine united opposition against them. In Syria, Kodmani suggested, the persistent threat of the ‘other’ provides justification for the use of violence against society. On a wider scale, sectarian violence offers major regional players the opportunity to assert their influence, with conservative forces from the Gulf monarchies and Iran casting themselves as the defenders of Sunnis and Shi’a respectively. Jack Straw also believed it was necessary to look behind these religious labels to the political rivalries they support.
What should be done? The panel offered two suggestions. For Matthiesen and Kodmani, a stable and lasting solution can only be found through the establishment of democratic societies on the basis of citizenship. For Kodmani, “Secularism provided it is well understood, is the most important principle we need to hold.” She offered the example of Tunisia, which following its Revolution has avoided extensive violence. Whilst one audience member suggested this was to do with economic pragmatism –“there is no such thing as Sharia-compliant tourism” – Kodmani stressed that Tunisia’s achievement was built on existing institutions of civil society lacking in many other countries – including trade unions and women’s groups. She believed that lasting solutions could only be based on equal citizenship, not ethnic or religious belonging.
Naguib and Straw agreed – but for them, the answer must be religious and well as political. Neither doubted that Islam and democracy are compatible. Naguib thought the issue of “Who speaks for Islam” must be resolved, and enduring solutions must have religious legitimacy. Straw suggested that stable religion-state relations have to be worked out in ways appropriate to each country. He reminded us that only a few decades ago religious “sectarians” from Ireland attempted to blow up the Prime Minister’s residence just across the road from where we were sitting. The history of religious conflict in Europe reminds us that stable solutions can take a very long time to evolve.
As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. In particular to would be useful to consider media and political responses to Islam and Islamaphobia.
For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time. After discussion, it might be worth getting students to listen to some of the podcasts provided on the website.
This is a Faith Interview featuring John Brewer, Keith Kahn-Harris, Jonathan Powell, Ian Reader, Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Christianity, Christian thought, Islam, Judaism, religious ethics and religion and society.
In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:
To what extent can religion help in peace-building?
What might be the disadvantages of religion being involved in peace-building?
Would you agree that ‘Violent conflicts in the modern world which appear to be rooted in religious divisions are in reality “power and resources dressed up as religion”’?
How far would you agree that women have a particular and special role in peace-building?
All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.
Violent conflicts in the modern world which appear to be rooted in religious divisions are in reality “power and resources dressed up as religion”, according to Jonathan Powell at the final Westminster Faith Debate of the season. He argued that religious organisations can play a part in bringing about peaceful resolutions – but other members of the panel were doubtful. The lively discussion showed that the role of religion in conflict situations is highly ambivalent.
This debate provided academic insight into what is a very contemporary controversy. In January 2014 former Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that religious extremism will be the biggest source of conflict in the 21st century; and in our first Faith Debate of the year we explored the interactions of religion, politics and armed conflict in the Arab Spring. But are there ways in which religious organisations can be agents for ending violence? Or do religions mainly act as catalysts for conflict and stumbling blocks for peace?
On the panel tackling these questions were John Brewer, Professor of Post Conflict Studies at Queen’s University Belfast; Keith Kahn-Harris, a specialist on dialogue within the Jewish community and on attitudes to Israel; Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff for Tony Blair and the chief British government negotiator on Northern Ireland during his time in office; and Ian Reader, Professor of Religious Studies at Lancaster University, with research interests in the connections between religion and violence. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke, former Home Secretary, and Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Lancaster.
Underlying much of the debate was the crucial question – what exactly is meant by ‘peace’? According to Brewer, an important factor that can exacerbate conflicts is that different players may have different ideas about what ‘peace’ is. He argued that in the Northern Ireland peace process, Catholics were often pushing for a broad “positive peace”, or “social transformation” – the securing of “justice, fairness, equality of opportunity”. Protestants, however, were focusing primarily on simply ending the violence – “negative peace”, or “conflict transformation”. Kahn-Harris cited the example of Israel and Egypt to demonstrate another interpretation – “cold peace” – a situation where the different sides do their best to avoid and ignore each other rather than actively seek to resolve their differences. For Powell, these more pessimistic notions of peace were exemplified in the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland – simply signing a peace agreement does not necessarily mean the end of social conflict.
For Brewer and Powell, it is precisely because ‘peace’ means more than the cessation of violence that religious organisations can play important roles in ‘peace-building’. Brewer divided this term into two processes: “state-building”, or the “political peace process”, which involves the reintroduction of government structures and the re-establishment of institutions of justice and politics; and “nation-building”, or the “social peace process”, where former enemies learn to live together after conflict. Most important in his view are the contributions of faith-based institutions to nation-building – they can lead communities in dealing with issues of forgiveness, memory, truth and justice. Powell suggested that religious institutions do not tend to have very useful roles in brokering the end of violence itself, though religious individuals have played important parts. Religious institutions can, however, be important for creating a context for dialogue between different sides. As Brewer noted, in Northern Ireland churches provided sacred spaces where political enemies could be brought together to engage in, and implement, the processes of ‘state-building’.
But the role of religions in conflict areas is not simply benevolent. Powell insisted that religion’s influence on the causes of conflict is often exaggerated – “Northern Ireland was not about religion” but about access to power, traditions and identity. Reader and Kahn-Harris, however, felt that religion often plays a much greater role in causing conflict than reducing it. Reader challenged Brewer by arguing that it is precisely when religion becomes involved in “nation-building” that problems arise. “Religious nationalism” is driving the attacks by Buddhists on Muslims in South East Asia. When the land itself forms part of a sacred landscape, which cannot be negotiated in religious terms, peaceful solutions can only be found in the ‘political sphere’.
Kahn-Harris was also critical of the capacity for religious organisations to reduce conflict. He suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had originally been between two movements that were essentially secular – the Zionist movement and the leftist liberation movement of the Palestinians. In the last few decades, however, the conflict has taken on increasingly religious elements. Religions can function by giving the “nitty gritty stuff” of daily life “transcendent implications” – which in Kahn-Harris’ view can make disputes over such temporal issues as land and power much more difficult to resolve. He also noted that peoples in diasporas, including Jews and Palestinians, can give conflicts universal significance, drawing in the support of other states like the USA and hindering resolution. Peace-making is best achieved when conflicts are relatively isolated and localised. Similarly, interfaith dialogue achieves most on the local, grassroots level – there is a danger that global, elitist interfaith dialogue can simply work as an “alibi”, enabling religious leaders to “feel good about themselves” without making practical progress.
A number of other structural factors were noted by the panel and audience members that might inhibit efforts for peace-building. International justice bodies can, ironically, impact detrimentally on the ending of conflict. Both Powell and Reader noted that the threat of facing justice and imprisonment makes it less likely that key figures involved in conflict atrocities will accept peace processes. On another note, Brewer stressed that the relations between particular states, civil societies and religions can affect in various ways the capacity for religious organisations to aid in peace-building. In the Northern Ireland case, he suggested that the established churches aimed at “negative peace”, the ending of violence, but were constrained by their allegiance to state players from pushing further. The “minority” churches and “maverick” individuals led the way towards broader “positive peace”. The variability of the structural relations between states, societies and religions means that it is important to approach conflict situations case-by-case – the peace-building model from one place may not be appropriate in a different context.
A final point raised by an audience member concerned the connections of gender, religious organisations and peace-making. The UN Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in 2000, affirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction. It was suggested to the panel that some of their pessimistic views on religion’s capacity to resolve conflict overlooked the importance of religiously-orientated, grassroots women’s movements in peace processes. Whilst the panel agreed with this point, Kahn-Harris cautioned against stereotyping women as ‘the peace-makers’ – both men and women can contribute to conflict, and both should engage in peace-building processes.
Ultimately, it seems that if religious organisations are to have practical successes in resolving conflicts, these are best achieved on the local, grassroots level. The panel generally agreed that religious groups are unlikely to broker the end of violence by themselves; but they can provide spaces for the establishment of dialogue, and in some cases they can aid the healing of social wounds after formal peace agreements are signed. In other cases, however, the influence of religion is clearly more likely to exacerbate conflict situations. As Clarke summed up, we need to disentangle religion’s precise role in the origins of individual cases. Sweeping statements about the functioning of religion only exacerbate the ignorance and distrust which lie behind much of the world’s conflicts today.
As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time. After discussion, it might be worth getting students to listen to some of the podcasts provided on the website.
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Linda Woodhead, Dominic Grieve, Kim Knott, Therese O’Toole and Trevor Phillips. It focuses on the issues surrounding religious identity in ‘superdiverse’ societies.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. Extension work could be carried out in relation to sub-cultures.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society, Christianity and Islam. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
How do we live well together in an increasingly diverse society, and how does religion contribute for good or ill?
Conclusions from the debate
Since the 1970s the UK has been the most successful country in Europe at integrating an increasingly wide range of religious identities and allowing them agency in society. This achievement should be more widely recognised.
But the success means that religious identities are now so diverse that it is no longer as helpful to think of a small number of ‘world faiths’ which make people ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’ etc., and which must relate to one another in a ‘multi-culture’. Many people are now religious ‘in their own way’, there are many varieties of Hindu, Muslim, and Christian, and religious identities are inflected by ethnicity, gender and so on. The concept of ‘superdiversity’ may now be more helpful than ‘multiculturalism’.
Research Findings
Britain leads in Europe in successful multi-faith work and integration of religious groups; many such groups are now significant agents in civil society; New Labour achieved a great deal in supporting multi-faith and inter-faith work; the Coalition government is continuing this work with more confidence but less cash.
Religious diversity is no longer a matter of homogenous religious communities (Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.) living side by side and together. Earlier talk of ‘multiculture’ can be unhelpful if it perpetuates this idea.
The decline of organised forms of religion has been accompanied by a multiplication of religious groups, more individualised religious identities, and multiple forms of belonging.
People do not have singular identities, but mixed ones (religious, gendered, ethnic and so on). It depends on context which aspect comes to the fore – often people ‘mobilise’ one aspect of their identity only when it is under threat.
Practical Suggestions
The UK should be more positive about how much has been achieved in terms of integrating a huge range of different identities, including religious ones – the bad news stories tend to eclipse the good news. Emphasis should continue to shift away from the state giving a small number of religious group identities what they ‘need’, to supporting freedom of conscience of individuals (liberty and toleration), and making sure that the life-chances of people are not limited by their identities (fairness and equality).
Insofar as there is a ‘host culture’ it is, and should remain, one which is hospitable to religious difference and freedom of conscience. This is the majority position, and whilst more exclusivist minorities retain their normal rights, they do so within this broader framework.
With ever-increasing diversity there will be more challenges. In order to meet these there needs to be:
understanding of the civic ‘rules of engagement’ which make it possible to live peacefully together and to reach agreement
creative partnerships with the state, including financial support for religious and other initiatives which encourage integration
awareness of how policies (e.g. on counter-terrorism) can foster the misleading idea that there are homogenous religious identities which wholly define people (e.g. ‘Muslim’)
better mechanisms, especially at local level, for dealing with religious disputes and reaching agreement.
After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 20 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
Westminster faith debate on religion and gender, featuring Charles Clarke, Fatima Barkatulla, Harvey Belovski, Linda Woodhead, Mary Ann Sieghart and Rod Thomas.
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Fatima Barkatulla, Harvey Belovski, Linda Woodhead, Mary Ann Sieghart and Rod Thomas. It focuses on the role of women in religion and gender issues in relation to God.
Students should complete a table showing what they know about the roles of men and women past and present.
The poll carried out prior to the debate shows what are perhaps surprising views about the role of women in religion:
YouGov survey for Westminster Faith Debates, 2013
Online survey
Total sample size 4,437 adults.
Fieldwork undertaken 25th – 30th January 2013.
The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
Approval of the Church of England (CofE)’s current policies towards women
16% of practising Anglicans 11% of nominal Anglicans 8% of the general population
Only 20% of Anglicans approve of how women are treated at parish level
Approval of RC Church’s current policies towards women
31% practising Catholics
22% Catholics
6% of the general population
Would religions be better if women held senior positions?
Answering “no”:
2% of ‘nones’
2% of Hindus
5% of Anglicans
10% of Catholics
11% of Jewish respondents
18% of Muslims
Populus (May 2008)
All
Christian
None
When you last thought about the concept of God, did you consider God as …
Male
62
73
48
Neither male nor female
18
15
18
Both male and female
3
4
2
Female
1
1
0
None of the above
16
7
32
Students could be given the same issues as used in this poll and asked to vote on them prior to watching the debate, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds.
All the people polled were 18+ so it could be worth comparing both the initial and final views of students with the YouGov results to see if there are any indications that young people, possibly more ‘modern’ in their outlook, give very different answers to the questions.
This programme is suitable for use with A level and GCSE students studying ethics, religion and society, sexual ethics and Christianity.
The debate focuses on two separate but related issues.
First:
The background for this debate was a recent vote by the General Synod (decision-making body) of the Church of England not to allow women to become bishops, which was met with dismay both within and outside the church. In the Roman Catholic Church women cannot be ordained at all, and leadership roles are reserved for men in many of the other world religions.
The majority of people in Britain think that religions would be better if more women held senior positions. If you rely more on God, religious leaders and teachings than you do on your own judgement, then you are much more likely to disapprove of women leaders in religion. Of the 5% among the population who do disapprove of women’s leadership, there are twice as many men as women.
Church leaderships and hierarchy are increasingly adrift from consensus views on gender equality among their own membership and the population at large.
Second:
Should God continue to be described as male within the Abrahamic faiths?
All the expected arguments are rehearsed on the difference between the roles of men and women in life as well as religion. However, a key stumbling block appears for the Evangelical Christian position when discussing the language to use of God. It appears here that although it might be desirable sometimes to refer to God as female or as genderless this cannot be done because (a) people cannot think of a genderless God and (b) because Christianity is a revealed religion and so the gender used of God in the Bible cannot be varied.
Students can now add more information to their tables and discuss them with others, adding more information as appropriate.
For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for younger students it might be advisable to watch each segment at a time (there are clear breaks between each part). After discussion, it would then be worth watching the two-minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
