Another day, another insidious, arrogant attempt by religious leaders to suggest that God is a paid-up member of the Remain campaign
Read this portentous intervention in the EU referendum debate and tell me it isn’t the most fatuous, ignorant, sanctimonious bilge to be uttered by religious community leaders and supposed people of God in recent memory:
Faith is about integration and building bridges, not about isolation and erecting barriers. As leaders and senior figures of faith communities, we urge our co-religionists and others to think about the implications of a Leave vote for the things about which we are most passionate.
The past 70 years have been the longest period of peace in Europe’s history. Institutions that enable us to work together and understand both our differences and what we share in common contribute to our increased security and sense of collective endeavour.
What’s more, so many of the challenges we face today can only be addressed in a European, and indeed a global, context: combating poverty in the developing world, confronting climate change and providing the stability that is essential to tackling the migration crisis.
We hope that when voting on 23 June, people will reflect on whether undermining the international institutions charged with delivering these goals could conceivably contribute to a fairer, cleaner and safer world.
The letter is naturally signed by all of the usual suspects:
Rt Rev Rowan Williams, former archbishop of Canterbury; Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, Movement for Reform Judaism; Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary general, Muslim Council of Britain; Jasvir Singh, chair, City Sikhs Network
Rt Rev Dr Ian Bradley, Church of Scotland & Reader in Church History and Practical Theology, University of St Andrews
Baroness Butler-Sloss, Chair, Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life
The Rt Rev Professor Lord Harries of Pentregarth, Emeritus Professor of Divinity, Gresham College, Honorary Professor of theology, King’s College London & Former Bishop of Oxford
The Rt Rev Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool
The list goes on. Sadly, from a personal perspective, it includes Bishop Thomas McMahon of the Diocese of Brentwood, who confirmed me into the Catholic church as a young, eighteen year old convert.
But if this ignorant waffle is the best thinking that modern Christianity can bring to bear on the EU referendum debate, then Christianity deserves to be in decline for it has ceased to be any kind of intellectual (let alone moral) force in this country.
If these learned people – many from the higher echelons of the establishment, some of them with theological doctorates to their name – genuinely can’t discern the difference between leaving one supranational political institution one the one hand and disengaging North Korea-like from the entire world on the other, then they deserve neither our respect nor the media’s airtime. And if they do discern the difference but choose to pretend to their congregations that Brexit means automatic isolationism, then they need to go back and consult their respective holy books to remind themselves what is written about bearing false witness.
Putting political preferences aside for a moment, anybody of faith in this country – Brexiteer or Remainer – should be appalled by this clumsy and ignorant intervention. For if religion is to continue to play a meaningful role in public life (as it should), the representatives of our faith surely have a duty to understand the issues on which they choose to intervene.
One has to earn the right to be listened to and taken seriously in the public square, and the surest way to forfeit that right is to talk loudly from a position of ignorance. And if this letter in the Observer reveals anything, it is a wellspring of ignorance. Ignorance about what the European Union is, why it was created and the direction in which it is plainly, openly heading. Ignorance about the true foundations of peace in Europe – liberal democracy, post-war economic growth and NATO. Ignorance about the future of global trade and regulation. And a profound ignorance (or at least a tendency to conveniently shut out the example) of the rest of the world, which has conspicuously avoided grouping itself into the type of regional supranational political bloc which the bishops bizarrely claim is essential to freedom and prosperity.
Where is the thought here? Where is the serious introspection, the good faith effort to actually listen to the opposing side (the importance of which religious leaders often lecture us) rather than go charging in to battle against a dishonestly constructed straw man? How, in short, is any Brexit-supporting Christian (or follower of any other faith represented in this car crash of an intervention) supposed to respect or feel respected by their spiritual leaders, after no less a figure than a former Archbishop of Canterbury made it quite plain in the pages of the observer that he believes that Brexiteers are literally seeking to undermine peace in Europe for no good reason?
Can the bishops point to a chapter and verse direction in the Bible that nations should seek to merge their political institutions together slowly and by stealth, while claiming that it is somehow necessary in order to underpin free trade? Of course not. Can the bishops highlight a specific injunction from the Lord clarifying that “building bridges” with neighbours means seeking some kind of continent-wide homogeneity? No. Tumbleweeds. The theological case for European political union is nothing more than a wheedling, hand-wringing, simpering assertion that because Jesus commanded us to love one another as He loved us, we should nod our heads and go along with one specific plan for European integration dreamed up by old men scarred from the memory of two world wars.
(In case you protest that a short OpEd in a newspaper is no place to set out complex arguments in full, I refer you to my pieces here, here, here and here, where I extensively discuss the fact that a solid Christian case in favour of the European Union has yet to be made by any religious leader in the course of this sorry EU referendum debate).
If the story of religious intervention in the EU referendum thus far teaches us anything, it is that those who claim to lead our faith groups and communities are profoundly ignorant both about the country in which they live, and the world with which they seek to engage.
But worse than that, the bishops are often ignorant about their own flocks and congregations, many of whom have solidly moral and intellectual reasons for wanting Britain to leave the European Union, and who deserve better than to be effectively labelled as harbingers of the apocalypse by virtue-signalling prelates who are either too lazy to learn or too disingenuous to admit that the EU is not the alpha and the omega of democracy, trade and international cooperation.
At some point – maybe not on June 23, but probably in years rather than decades – the European Union will face a true crisis of democracy and legitimacy, as the passions of the narrow-minded European political elites diverge ever further from the interests of the people they lead. Whether this leads to civil unrest, antidemocratic coups d’etat or the breakup of the EU itself remains to be seen. But those bishops and other faith leaders who so airly signed their names to this letter proclaiming that anything other than a vote to Remain in the EU essentially means cheering on climate change, war and pestilence will find themselves dangerously exposed (which is perhaps why they have done so in their own names, but their organisations have held back).
For when the EU’s final crisis of democracy comes, the names of these faith leaders who today encouraged us to remain in the European Union will be mud. And deservedly so, for they have betrayed democracy either through their ignorance or their invidious EUphilia.
And if the bishops think that they and their values are being squeezed out of the public square now, they should wait until they are permanently associated in the public mind with actively working to keep Britain chained inside this failing, antidemocratic, euro-federalist experiment.
When the EU’s day of reckoning finally comes, the signatories to this letter may well yearn for that happy time when the public was merely indifferent about religion.
Top Image: Telegraph
Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:
Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.
Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on Twitter, Facebook and Medium.
Priestcraft of the worst sort: the statement makes no reference to truth, surely a rather important component of any Christian appraisal of events.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen to that. Shocking that there seems to no longer even be any effort made to search for truth, just the earnest recitation of the Remain campaign’s talking points.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…’What’s more, so many of the challenges we face today can only be addressed in a European, and indeed a global, context: combating poverty in the developing world….’….
To be fair, just for now, I’ll assume this is a sincerely held view and is sufficiently important for expansion into the real debate.
‘…the developing world…’…. will frequently mean large parts of Africa. Equitable commerce with which is made impossible with the EU due almost entirely to the insistence of one country – France. Even if they wanted to take on their Trades Unions and reform CAP (they don’t) the likelihood any French Government could survive the protests is practically nil.
This (in the style of Donald Rumsfeld) is a known-known – the ongoing and institutionally perpetuated EU hurt against large parts of Africa is an established international fact. I’ll allow Rowan Williams the leeway that he just hasn’t got around to mentioning it yet. But ultimately, this phenomenon is going to have to be dismantled. France via the EU is perpetuating it, and so the French Taxpayer by means of a decision by the French Government is going to have to take that bitter little pill. What I’d like to know from Williams is his expected acceptable timetable?
Would it be ten years? Five? Thirty-five? ‘As soon as possible’ is a spineless cop-out. There is a phenomenon of poverty created directly by the EU’s pathological inability to reform. At which point does that become an affront to Williams? At what point would he be willing to accept this prejudice is not in spite of his Utopian EU, but because of it? It’s for him to properly establish the link and to provide his own moral timetable – because denuding his argument of this important point renders his intervention to be utterly irrelevant, and without proper academic value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well said, Mr Carter!
I dont suppose you will be getting any answers any time soon……
Until man has evolved out of his predilection to be controlled by those claiming divine authority, religions will always be used to cause division and ultimately, war. The EU immigration debate must tackle the unspoken issues of amahdiphobia, shiaphobia, zionphobia, westernphobia, apostatephobia, athiestphobia, homophobia preached by sunni islam. It is pointless forcing multi culturalism on us until it has been resolved.