The BBC's Moral Maze, indeed

Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a commentator on religion for National Public Radio.

A promotional teaser for the BBC’s weekly radio debate, “The Moral Maze,” proved partially prophetic during last week’s segment on religion and politics: “The intellectual vigor allows us to indulge in abuse!” We should underscore the word partially. There was plenty of abuse—the abuse of history, common sense, and journalistic ethics—but not nearly as much mental vigor. The diversity of views could not conceal the fact that even a showcase of the BBC’s “informed debate” can devolve into petulance and sloganeering.

Each week Moral Maze panelists interrogate several “witnesses” on a topic touching on religion and ethics. Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s announcement that he would send his daughter to a Catholic school was enough to prompt a quintessentially European question: Does religion have any legitimate place in our democratic life?

The alert listener would be rewarded with an answer something like this: If we consider ourselves sane and tolerant people, not much place at all.

“First of all, I think religion is a delusion,” declared Lewis Wolpert, biology professor at King’s College, University of London. “I’m not against people being religious, but I just don’t want their religious beliefs in any way to be imposed on us.”

Catholic writer Clifford Longley, one of the interrogators, reminded Mr. Wolpert of Christian opposition to the slave trade, the Nazi Party, and racial discrimination. Were Christian leaders wrong to wade into the public square to speak out on these issues?

Mr. Wolpert hesitated. “You know, religion has done terrible things in the past,” he said. “You’re quoting the good things. But what about all the bad things?”

Mr. Longley shot back: “But your case depends on it [religion] always being wrong.” Mr. Wolpert seemed to recede even further into the emotional sanctuary of the schoolyard bully: “It’s not about being right or wrong. I just want it not there at all.”

Consider the mind which considers this an argument: I just want it not there at all. Here is the rebellious, plaintive moan of enlightenment man—man without God, man as a god unto himself. What are we to make of this mind? More to the point, can democracy survive with minds like this at the helm?

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, argued unconvincingly that it can. Her organization opposes any mention of religion—especially Christianity—in the European Constitution. Some EU parliamentarians tried unsuccessfully a few years ago to insert a reference to Europe’s “Christian roots” in the document’s preamble. Why, she was asked, is it unacceptable for a continent to acknowledge the depth and wealth of its cultural heritage?

“I fully accept that part of Europe’s heritage is based on Christianity,” she confessed. But, she added hastily, in a diverse and multicultural society “it’s actually very damaging to say, here is Europe, which is based on Christian values.” Ms. Stinson failed to explain exactly who or what would be hurt by a frank acknowledgement of Europe’s debt to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. The willful damage to the integrity of the historical record by such an omission seemed not to concern her.

What disturbed this listener most, perhaps, was how the debate began. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor and professed agnostic, fretted about politicians who claim any connection to the Divine. “What troubles me is that politicians who do take guidance from unseen sources are essentially fanatical,” he said. “If President Bush thinks that God has told him to topple Saddam Hussein, then there’s no defense in logic against another man who says that his god told him to bomb a discotheque or fly planes into buildings.”

This bit of anti-Bush propaganda has crisscrossed the Atlantic for years now. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the late historian, used the slur to dismiss Mr. Bush as “a fanatic” and a threat to democracy. “The most dangerous people in the world today,” he wrote, “are those who persuade themselves that they are executing the will of the Almighty.”  Columnist Bruce Bartlett told the Sunday New York Times that the president can speak confidently about the dark intentions of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda because he, too, believes he hears directly from heaven. “[Bush] understands them because he’s just like them.”

This obtuse slander was repeated several times during the BBC broadcast, yet left unchallenged. The Rev. Jane Alison Shaw, a liberal Anglican minister and regular Guardian contributor, assumed the truth of the charge. When asked if it was OK for Tony Blair to pray before the Iraq war but wrong for Mr. Bush to claim that God guided him to oust Saddam, her best answer suggested the need for a strong dose of Martin Luther: “Yes, that’s about where I stand.” And she can do no other, God help her.

Nowhere and at no time has Mr. Bush ever claimed that God told him to attack Iraq. He has, in fact, rebuffed the very idea repeatedly. Likewise, the president has made clear, on numerous occasions, that America’s confrontation with radical Islam is not a holy war. His prayers, he says, are for strength and guidance for the demands of leadership—prayers uttered in one form or another by most of the men who held the office before him.

It’s not hard to guess why this urban legend—in the same category of crackpot theories that claim Elvis was kidnapped by aliens—can find a home among politicians and public intellectuals. It serves as a proxy for an actual argument: Bush is delusional. Bush invaded Iraq. The Iraq war is the horrid project of a delusional, faith-based mind. Case closed.

BBC journalists, however, hold themselves to a higher standard. The Moral Maze, in fact, typically offers something rarely heard on radio or television: a real diversity of viewpoints, argued intelligently and engagingly, and informed by a keen desire to understand the human condition. We have virtually nothing like it in the United States, and we’re worse off for it.

Which is what makes last week’s exchange so disheartening. Michael Buerk, host of the Moral Maze, knows—or ought to know—the facts about Mr. Bush. They are easily accessible and thoroughly unambiguous. Yet he went along with the lie. To wink at character assassination, to know the truth but to keep silent—such are the signs of an institution in moral and intellectual decline. For truth cannot be sought, and suppressed, at the same time. “Nonsense in the intellect,” warned C.S. Lewis, “reinforces corruption of the will.”

Mr. Portillo offered a shadowy preview of what Europe might look like if this tortured mode of thought were left unchallenged: a Europe that regards religion with political suspicion and cultural contempt. It is a scenario that would have terrified one of Europe’s greatest political philosophers, John Locke. “The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Portillo sneered at the notion, suggested by philosopher Roger Trigg, that Christianity has supplied the crucial inspiration for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. “Now that Britain has become a very secular society,” he boasted, “we have more widespread justice, we have no death penalty, so the facts of history seem to be against you.” That would be like Charles Lindbergh crediting his transatlantic flight to his arms flapping in the wind. The massive historical record—that religious ideals underwrote our scientific and democratic revolutions—never seems to disturb the rhythm of this secular cant.

Mr. Trigg, a Socrates in comparison, was finally asked if he feared the onset of a naked public square—a public realm devoid of religious influence. How would such an ideology be enforced by the state? “I don’t think in the end you can,” he said, “if you believe in freedom.”

No, not if you happen to believe in freedom.

Comments

[John Coles]

""“Now that Britain has become a very secular society,” he boasted, “we have more widespread justice, we have no death penalty, so the facts of history seem to be against you.”""
How worthy of Portillo. He certainly has a love affair with the media, but, ironically, be it print or broadcasting, the media is exposing him for the intellectual bankrupt that he is. To think that he was once seen as the standard bearer for the right of the Tory party - what a thoroughly unprincipled creature he has turned out to be.

[Simon Newman]

"Ms. Stinson failed to explain exactly who or what would be hurt by a frank acknowledgement of Europe’s debt to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition."

Since the correct answer to that is something like "the dominant Marxist-Leninist dialectical narrative"; it's not surprising she didn't wish to answer this. You're supposed to hear "damaging" and just accept it without question, otherwise you're a Bad Person, what used to be called an Enemy of the People, but they have some different terminology now.

I do actually think that Bush's religious faith does enable him to intuitively understand the actual motivations of the likes of Bin Laden much better than the left-liberals do.
Unlike the left-liberals I don't think this is a bad thing, although I wish Bush would make better use of his insight. Up until the Iraq invasion I thought Bush was handling the Al Qaeda challenge rather better than a left-liberal President would have done.

[TomTom]

The Moral Maze is actually put out as part of the BBC Religious Programming funnily enough.

It has deteriorated markedly with Portillo who is a second-rate intellect - David Starkey was much more fun.

The BBC tends to stack it - it usually has Melanie Phillips fighting off Steven Rose and his oddities.......

The BBC has a predisposition to any challenge to its self-perception of itself as The Only True God delivering its sermons across the airwaves. At the very least the BBC considers itself the True Established Church funded by tithe and whose priests and priestesses give daily readings from The Gospel of The Politically Correct to the Great Unwashed

[Account Deleted]

In all fairness, the essential reason why religion has no place in the public square is that religion is based on faith, not reasoned argument.

Consider the following two arguments:

1) I like marriage because it gives children the best start in life.
2) I like marriage because of what I read in my holy text.

2) is clearly not a justification for a policy, whereas 1) is, (assuming we all want to give children the best start in life.)

This belief that religion should not be used directly in political argument is different from ignoring people's right to hold religious beliefs on a personal leve(e.g. as in the recent gay adoption case, where the state has no right to tell people what they should think about gay rights.)

Finally, the assumption democracy and secularism arose from Judeo-Christianity is nonsense and always has been. Secularism and democracy arose because Western Europe was exhausted from religious wars arising from the reformation, and people decided that it was better to live together in tolerance than keep killing one another in the name of faith.

[TomTom]

the essential reason why religion has no place in the public square is that religion is based on faith, not reasoned argument.

ok - now give a valid reason not to kill people -

There is no rational reason that hinders executions in South london

[TomTom]

and people decided that it was better to live together in tolerance than keep killing one another in the name of faith.

and so Robespierre created his own religion as happiness spread throughout Revolutionary France

[EdR]

While I've no love for the BBC's propaganda agenda, this counter-propaganda piece is hardly a clarion call for open, fair-minded debate. I'm reminded of the anti-atheist CNN report which got some attention on a few blogs a few weeks ago which was at least as vile in nature as the Moral Maze programme sounds from this description.

TomTom: There's a word for someone who needs a reason NOT to kill somebody: a psychopath.

[Account Deleted]

Tom Tom

- valid reason not to kill people -

There is none. People only don't because it would make them unhappy (guilt). That is why there has to be a police force, because some people don't feel the same way about killing as the rest of us. Politics is essentially the state using force at the end of the day. That is not to celebrate force or the state, both are necessary evils. And how we use that state force should be discussed as rationally as possible, proceeding from those first principles as many people as possible agree on. Not justifying those first principles on religious grounds, but human emotion.

As for Robespierre, I think you'll find that the religious wars in France ended in the Edict of Nantes (1598). I am not sure what your point is, apart from just as there are religious fanatics, there are secular fanatics too (and I am just as against such secular fanatics as well!)

[TomTom]

My point was simply that the so-called "religious" wars were political because The Church and Politics were one and unified until The Reformation.......viz Cardinal Richelieu, or The Lord Chancellor being a Churchman until 1538 and a Lawyer thereafter.

The split which led to Churchmen no longer holding the political offices of state is what led to the "secular" ie political nature of war and the fact that Robespierre having seen an absolute monarch who ruled by divine right executed created his own Cult of the Supreme Being as the Revolution introduced the 10-day week and other innovations to show the new era.

In short, it was simply that Politics was fused with religion until The Reformation and became divergent thereafter - but poltics continued to be virulent. ....and as for because some people don't feel the same way about killing as the rest of us. that is twaddle.

Killing people who stand in your way is ultimately rational - extermination of peoples and minorities is perfectly rational - it is the irrational nature of Judaeo-Christian thought to assign an equal worth to each human life in terms of its ethical worth.

Christianity is designed to brake the impulses of the strong and restain the powerful. It is ultimately irrational and Auschwitz-Birkenau is the epitome of a consequential rationalist approach to a problem. There is no rational objection to what took place, and its construction and operation was defined by exceedingly rational engineering approaches to a defined problem.

It is the irrationality of Christian Belief which restrains us from a Rationalist Hell

[Account Deleted]

TomTom
All action is based on emotion not reason.

Reason tells you how to achieve an aim. Not whether or not the aim is a good one.

I quote Hume, my favourite philosopher, who as usual is spot on in this area:

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

We use reason to tell us how to obtain our desires and to process the outside world.

What our desires are is another matter. Compassion full stop is no more or less irrational than Christian inspired compassion. Indeed, because Christianity posits a God it makes sense of what we have to do with our emotions/beliefs, rather than leave us with the messy process of working it out for ourselves. Which is why it still appeals to billions, though less than it used to...

"Auschwitz-Birkenau is the epitome of a consequential rationalist approach to a problem". Well, yes. But the "problem" was not real, (the Jews were not trying to wipe out the Aryan master race). So the "solution" was horrific because it meant killing millions of innocent victims.

The Inquisition is the epitome of a rationalist religious approach to a problem. Given that the souls of millions were at stake, what were a few more victims on the fires and in the dungeons? Indeed, it is religious tolerance which is irrational in one sense- given that I am damned for my unbelief, why should you even consider my opinions.

So basically the point is that faith based arguments (faith in God, or faith in 'the revolution' being equally foolish), are dangerous and should be ignored.

Your points on the fusing of politics and religion is ultimately supporting the BBC's point... that politics is ultimately about struggle.

I submit that where you believe you are supremely 'good' and the others 'bad' you are less likely to be sensible about politics and more likely to be partisan, aggressive, and not treat your opponent or his arguments with the respect they deserve (as they are on the side of Satan and his little imps.) Seems pretty true when you look at theocratic states and theocratic politicians to me.

[Account Deleted]

So the injection of faith into the struggle that is politics makes politics even more vicious than secular politics.

[Jon Gale]

"Catholic writer Clifford Longley, one of the interrogators, reminded Mr. Wolpert of Christian opposition to the slave trade, the Nazi Party, and racial discrimination. Were Christian leaders wrong to wade into the public square to speak out on these issues?"

The correct answer is that Christians also strongly supported the slave trade, the Nazi Party and racial discrimination. So what? It proves nothing.

TomTom

"give a valid reason not to kill people"

Because if everyone went around killing and stealing and raping YOU or your loved ones would get killed, stolen from and raped (not neccessarily in that order!). It is the Golden Rule.

So eventually people had enough and set down ground rules: Do Not Kill, Do Not Steal, Do Not Rape, etc. Those who do will be punished by the community. Then you dont have to be on your guard all the time, you dont have to sleep with one eye open.

Marriage is good because all the facts show it is better for the child. Not because of God.

And then some bright spark thought of ascribing these rules to the supernatural - the direct equivalent of "Dont do that or the monster will get you".

People have the right to believe what they want but religion should be regarded the same way as astrology, healing crystals, homeopathy, Zeus, Aphrodite, tarot, dowsing for water with twigs, feng shui, reptiloids, and Hollow Earth theory - where it belongs.

You wouldn't like Presidents and Prime ministers to start talking of how they are guided by their belief in astrology or let their faith in homeopathy influence policy.
Religious politicians are exactly the same.

[LC Mamapajamas]

re: Portillo's statement, "“If President Bush thinks that God has told him to topple Saddam Hussein, then there’s no defense in logic against another man who says that his god told him to bomb a discotheque or fly planes into buildings.”

This is one of the most outrageous canards that I've heard in recent years... that Bush is supposed to be listening to what "God has told" him. This is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard.

As I recall it, it was not "God" who told Bush to invade Iraq, but rather Saddam Hussein and the UN.

The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement, aka: UNSC Res 687, was a CEASE FIRE, not a peace treaty. A cease fire agreement is abrogated the moment one of the parties starts firing again. Saddam BROKE the cease fire in 1991, and continued to do so more than 2000 times in the intervening years between the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

My only objection to the Iraq invasion is that it SHOULD have started in 1991, the FIRST time Saddam broke the cease fire. Otherwise, a "cease fire agreement" has no strength of force. It was the long wait with all of the BS going on with the UN Paper Tiger that caused the public to forget that it was SADDAM who invited us to invade his country by violating the cease fire repeatedly.

When Saddam violated UNSC Res 687, the invasion of Iraq IMMEDIATELY became legal, moral, and tactically desirable. But the first Bush and Clinton let it slide by.

[TomTom]

, (the Jews were not trying to wipe out the Aryan master race). So the "solution" was horrific because it meant killing millions of innocent victims.

That was not the reason for their extirpation - I suggest you research deeper into the reasons. The ones you posit suggest your teacher misled you.

As for Jon Gale you retreat to Kant, but I suggest you read up on The Categorical Imperative.

1AM as for the Nazis - they were not Christians - indeed they created their own religion and Christmas decorations. They were ultimately rational however. The first man murdered at Auschwitz was actually a 24-year old Red Army Captain......Jews were not murdered at Birkenau until it had been operating for 18 months. You forget homosexuals and Communists and gypsies from the death camps because it reveals the lucidity of the Nazis. Having defined these groups as Gesindel and Ungeziefer which means trash and they did what any rational person would do - they flushed it and burned the refuse.

It is the same rationality that makes us accept abortion - it is not a life therefore it can be terminated and cremated.

Marriage is good because all the facts show it is better for the child.

Yes..you are almost quoting The Book of Common Prayer 1662 verbatim. Congratulations !

[TomTom]

People have the right to believe what they want but religion should be regarded the same way as astrology, healing crystals, homeopathy, Zeus, Aphrodite, tarot, dowsing for water with twigs, feng shui, reptiloids, and Hollow Earth theory - where it belongs.

So that's your Belief System Jon Gale.......but what is Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews don't accept your "religion" ?

[TomTom]

"give a valid reason not to kill people"

Because if everyone went around killing and stealing and raping YOU or your loved ones would get killed, stolen from and raped (not neccessarily in that order!). It is the Golden Rule.

But why must it be universalisable ? Not everyone would do that by definition. If you are an Existentialist you might be free to murder to gain advantage, to lie, to covet, to steal because you know others will not react in the same way.

Statistically, buying a handgun in Britain conveys an advantage because neither police nor any other citizen is likely to be armed. The existentialist position of having a handgun by not being bound by any moral or legal code which is alien conveys immediate advantage

[Jon Gale]

"So that's your Belief System Jon Gale.......but what is Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews don't accept your "religion"?"

The same that should happen to those who advocate homeopathy - ignored (or argued with and probably ridiculed).

If you want to understand my position try replacing every mention of God you see/hear with 'Zeus'. See how ridiculous public figures sound?

And if you can understand why you reject Zeus, then ask yourself what actually makes your own God any different?

[Jon Gale]

Just to add to my last comment:

...The same that should happen to those who advocate homeopathy - ignored (or argued with and probably ridiculed). NOT invited to input into govt policy, pandered to, allowed exemptions from school uniforms, wearing crash helmets, or other policies, protected from criticism, or in away regarded as a respectable position for normal people and public figures to hold.

[Yet Another Anon]

The Moral Maze is waffle, it's entertainment masquerading as serious discussion, long pauses, positions that almost might as well be scripted!

[TomTom]

And if you can understand why you reject Zeus, then ask yourself what actually makes your own God any different?

Posted by: Jon Gale | March 07, 2007 at 11:35 PM

But Jon Gale I don't care about your views, they are simply erroneous. You are the one who is trying to sell a credo to the rest of us, you for some reason have an obsession....are you a Uranist ?

[Denise]

Jon Gale,

So what you are saying is that only an atheist should be allowed to run for office? That's what it sounds like you are saying. Now tell me just how democratic is that? Let's put the shoe on the other foot and ask what is it that makes an atheist any better than someone who is religious? What makes them so perfect? One other thing. You mention 'The Golden Rule' in your response to Tom Tom about a 'valid reason not to kill people'. Tell me, who taught that Golden Rule? Where did it come from?

[Jon Gale]

"are you a Uranist?

I had to look that up. Dictionary.com says it means 'homosexual'. No. Is that what you thought it meant? Seems an odd question.

Denise,

"So what you are saying is that only an atheist should be allowed to run for office?"

No, of course anyone can run for office - the Natural Law Party, the Monster Raving Loony Part, Christian People's Party, etc.

All I'm saying is that being religous should not be treated as a respectable, morally laudable position, or an electoral advantage, when it is in fact a deluded belief in paranormal superstitious twaddle comparable to astrology or psychics.

"Tell me, who taught that Golden Rule? Where did it come from?"

Hindusim: "This is the sum of the Dharma: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:15:17)

Confucius: "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others."

Buddism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga 5:18)

Plato "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me."

Socrates: "What stirs your anger when done to you by others, that do not do to others."

Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And many others. It's basic common sense. Divine revelation is not required.

[Robin Millar]

Consider the following two arguments:

1) I like marriage because it gives children the best start in life.
2) I like marriage because of what I read in my holy text.

2) is clearly not a justification for a policy, whereas 1) is, (assuming we all want to give children the best start in life.)

1AM | March 07, 2007 at 09:37 AM

It is implied that these two arguments are mutually exclusive. In fact, some may consider that the second informs the first.

[TomTom]

Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I don't recall that being said...please furnish a reference

[mamapajamas]

Robin M. re: "It is implied that these two arguments are mutually exclusive. In fact, some may consider that the second informs the first."

The items listed:

1) I like marriage because it gives children the best start in life.

2) I like marriage because of what I read in my holy text.

The first item is informed by years of research by sociologists. They spent decades discovering the obvious that our great grandparents told us... that children need TWO role models, one of each sex, to learn to socialize properly. Children who succeed socially with only one parent do so IN SPITE of their handicap due to their own personal strengths.