Religion and Belief: British Public Life

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for securing this debate and introducing it so well. I want to concentrate on two major points.

When we talk about religion, there is a danger of homogenising it, assuming that religion more or less takes the same form in all societies or that all religions are basically the same. In the United Kingdom, there are three crucial facts which we cannot afford to ignore. First, there is diversity between religions. That is not just plurality of religions—more religions than one—but diversity. They are differently structured. Some are community-based; some are individual-based. Some stress conduct; some are not terribly interested in conduct but stress belief. Some are globally connected; some are largely nationally confined. That is the first thing.

Secondly, there is diversity within religions. There is no religion that does not contain sects or diversity of interpretation. I do not have time to elaborate on this point, but it is also striking that for some, religion is a matter of faith, a taken-for-granted fact of life. For the younger generation, which has grown up in it, especially immigrants, it is a matter of identity: something that you wear as a badge of who you are and announce to the world, but you select bits and pieces of your religion. For yet others, religion is an ideology. In any religious community, you will have groups which appropriate their religion very differently.

There is also a third kind of diversity: different approaches to religion. Some people turn to religion because they are looking for an explanation of the nature of human existence and the place of human beings in the universe. For them, religion is primarily theology. For others, religion is primarily a matter of principles of conduct: how should one behave; what are the ideals of excellence which one should try to emulate? For them, religion is a matter of ethics. There are yet others for whom religion is neither a matter of metaphysics nor theology, nor of ethics, but largely a question of belonging: which is the tradition and community to which I belong? No beliefs or metaphysics are involved, simply a question of being at home within a particular community.

Those are the different kinds of diversity that obtain within our society. What follows? Two things follow. First, we should not make the mistake of thinking that all religions must be treated in the same way. If we do, given their differences, sameness can mean inequality. Secondly, we should not talk about religion in the abstract. Some religions in some modes can be terribly beastly. Some religions in some modes can be profoundly elevating. We need to be careful before we talk about the place of religion in public life or the fact that religions are doing valuable work.

It is also worth bearing in mind, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, pointed out, that when we talk about the great work that religions do, we always think of charitable activities, which look after the victims of our society. I have long waited to hear the radical voice of religion. If one considers Christianity, there is the driving of the money-changers from the temple. You find the same sort of thing in Judaism and Buddhism. The radical religious voice which tries to transform the economy and the social structure is rarely heard.

It is striking how, in a liberal democratic society such as ours, religion can easily be co-opted into an ameliorative function, looking after the victims of society but not challenging society itself. We need to be very careful when we talk about faith-based action. We tolerate faith-based action as long as it looks after the victims of society, but if it takes the form of radical challenge, such as occupying Wall Street, or whatever, we begin to think very differently.

My next point, which I shall make quickly, has to do with the way in which religion has to come to terms with certain fundamental principles of human morality. Religious beliefs should be respected, but what if they violate racial equality? What if a belief says that blacks should not be treated equally? We will say no, we will not respect that belief. What about gender equality? We will say no, it must be respected, no matter what your beliefs. It is striking that when it comes to sexual orientation, we seem to vacillate. Should gay couples be allowed to marry in churches? Should they be allowed to adopt? We say yes, but, at the same time, no.

That is where a crucial dilemma faces any liberal democratic society. We can insist on equality and say that, just as we want racial equality and gender equality respected, we want sexual orientation equality to be respected, but at the same time, we recognise that it has a different history and comes from a different tradition, and we try to accommodate it. That is precisely the point. The whole idea of accommodation is patronising. It is also administrative. It presupposes that there is one way of doing the right thing, but seeing that some chaps in our society complain, we try to accommodate them. I see that as a fundamental conflict of values. The question is how do we reconcile—not accommodate—those parties and create a society in which people holding basically different beliefs nevertheless feel respected?