Veritas - Spring 2020

VERITAS

Journal of Theology and Philosophy

VERITAS - Issue VIII - Spring Term 2020

Issue VIII Spring 2020

Riyen Karia, OH 2018 2000 – 2020

Issue VIII of Veritas is dedicated to the memory of Riyen Karia, who died suddenly on 24 January 2020.

Riyen was a cherished member of the Theology A-Level cohort of 2018. There was a huge amount to be admired about Riyen. He was impeccably polite, well-mannered and kind. He was also – as those who knew him well will

know – witty, often enjoying a quip or a pun around whatever political view or figure was under discussion.

Indeed, Riyen’s politics were never far from the conversation, and he brought his great passion and expertise in this area to bear in his work in Theology.

Riyen was perceptive, well-informed and passionate when it came to questions about faith and politics. For instance, he has been remembered recently for his views on secularism, and more particularly the question of whether Christian faith should play a part in mainstream education. It was Riyen who alerted colleagues to the Conservative Manifesto pledge to lift the cap on places for Catholics at new schools. These were discussions that really only took place because of Riyen. He brought a great deal of variety and richness to the classroom.

On leaving the School, Riyen was awarded The Haberdashers’ Company Prize for Theology. Despite his good results, it was nevertheless his diligence, punctuality,

cheerful

manner

and

enthusiastic

engagement that meant he won the prize. In this way,

he was a great role model for what a successful student should be. We hope this journal goes some way to doing justice to that legacy.

CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………….1 Welcome to new teachers……………….............6 Reports………………………………………………………11 Sixth Form…………………………………………………24 Middle School……………………………………………55 Junior School…………………………………………….75 Open Submissions……………………………………90 Interview with Rev Brandon…………………….114 Editorial Team………………………………………….118

INTRODUCTION

Mr Raven, Staff Editor It has been another busy few months editing and producing Veritas. This year’s theme is religion and global politics and it has been wonderful to read such diverse and fascinating essays on the topic. Recently, NATO gathered the world’s most powerful leaders at a hotel near to Habs. It was interesting to be so close to such high-powered individuals who are shaping the new global politics. There is a question, of course, as to the place of religion in such events and discussions.

Trump is favoured by a segment of the American evangelical right, but does this actually mean anything when it comes to steering a superpower through the complexities of global politics? The same kind of questions could be asked of countries such as China and

1

Russia.

Both

nations

have

strong

Communist

foundations, yet both have populations where there is a surprisingly high amount of religious fervour.

The Crusades perhaps marked the starting point of a deeply ambivalent relationship between religion and politics. Western and Eastern powers were pitted in religiously dualistic terms with long-lasting and damaging consequences. We only have to recall George W. Bush’s infamous ‘crusade’ remarks after 9/11 to know how ingrained these episodes of history are in the Western consciousness – and how emotive they remain.

I hope you enjoy this edition of Veritas. My thanks go to the editors (who are mentioned at the back) and all those who contributed. It is unfortunate that we could not include all submissions in the final version of the journal, but there were far too many quality pieces for us to practicably include!

2

Mr Lawrence, Head of Theology and Philosophy Never before has inter-faith dialogue been so relevant in a pursuit

of

global

conflict

resolution. The increasingly volatile, uncertain, changing and ambiguous nature of the world in which we live requires us to focus ever more pressingly on the ultimate worldview question: what does it mean to live a good life?

One major political issue this year has centred around humanity’s threat from climate change. A significant human rights issue, rising global temperatures are already impacting on people’s fundamental rights to food, water, shelter, healthcare and beyond. Political lobbying and increased global knowledge are central to addressing this crisis and it is important that we reflect on our own contribution to the issue. I continue to be fascinated by the global political issues at the centre of Habs’ students’ interests. As our GCSE students explore religious attitudes towards sexuality, it is sobering to 3

know that it is still a crime to be gay, lesbian or bisexual in at least 72 countries today. The increased awareness and interest in such issues is integral to an understanding of what it means to live a good life and the impact we all have as members of communities, both local and global.

In a recent lecture

at

Durham University’s Global Lecture Series on the question ‘Can politics be moral?’, Dr Rowan Williams argued ‘not only can it be moral, it must be moral’.

1

I encourage all readers to continue

developing a critical consciousness through reading this journal. As our A-Level students explore the impact of globalisation on communities and global politics, the ability to ascertain knowledge and critique sources of

1

https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=40628 4

knowledge becomes even more vital. It is through the study of Theology and Philosophy that we develop this critical consciousness. Enjoy the journal and my sincere thanks to all those who have contributed.

5

NEW TEACHERS

Dr Tromans I left school at 18 and worked

as

greenkeeper trainee

a and golf-

professional at a club in Shropshire. Five years and three club championships later, I moved to London to work for a stockbrokers. After a further five years, however, I was less concerned with stocks

and

shares

than

with

Schelling

and

Schleiermacher.

I graduated, first, with a BA (Hons.) in Theology, and, second, with a Ph.D. in Philosophical Theology. My doctoral research was focused on the intimate relationship between anthropological and revelatory knowledge

of

God,

especially 6

in

post-

Nietzschean/“postmodern” philosophical theology and the Anglo-American reception of Luce Irigaray’s Lacanian feminism. During the past two years, I have published a series of scholarly articles in various peerreviewed academic journals centred on these broad themes.

Concurrent to my Ph.D., I worked as a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies at a university in Canterbury, Kent. There, I taught a wide variety of courses in Christian theology and Occidental philosophy of religion. Following the successful defence of my Ph.D. thesis, I made the transition from higher education to secondary teaching.

My areas of research interest include (but are not limited to): the human ascent to the divine in Platonism and Christian Neo-Platonism, second- and third-wave Feminist

theology

and

philosophy

of

religion,

Continental philosophy of religion from Hegel onwards, Jewish-Christian-Muslim Comparative Theology, and Anglo-American philosophical theology within a postmodern context. Going forward, I plan to continue 7

my exploration of the space “between” philosophy and theology

(sometimes

called

“metaxological”

philosophy) and intend to prepare a manuscript on the potential

of

interpretations

traditional of

and

analogy

contemporary for

feminist

theology/philosophy of religion.

I am an enthusiastic follower and (sometimes!) player of various sports, including football (life-long Liverpool fan), cricket, and golf. As a school-boy, I was a member of the First XI football and cricket squads. A little later, as mentioned above, I also became a keen golfer (with a handicap as low as 4).

I am a classically trained pianist, though, these days, I mainly play improvised blues and jazz. In my spare time, I also enjoy film, modern jazz (especially John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk), opera, and classical concerts.

8

Mr Davis

When I left school, my ambition was to work in finance and so, naturally, I read Economics for my first degree. I qualified as a Chartered Accountant a few years later and worked for a couple

of

practices

before

leaving that world behind to travel around Asia - with a particular draw to northern India, Nepal and Tibet. I have long been fascinated by the Eastern faiths and so relished the opportunity to explore them first-hand in their native lands. On my return, not wanting to give up my spiritual studies, I did an MA in Mysticism and Religious Experience, exploring themes as diverse as the apophatic tradition, medieval alchemical literature, as well as Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. I have been teaching T&P now for fourteen years, the last twelve of which were at Highgate School. I love the platform that T&P provides to examine key questions about meaning, 9

being and purpose and I really look forward to continuing that at Habs.

10

REPORTS

Report from the Year 11 Theology and Philosophy conference 29th November 2019

Hugo Bach 11R1 and Isaac Halperin 11S1 On Friday 29th November 2019, year 11 T&P students attended Dr Peter Vardy’s ‘Salvation’ conference, focused on helping all GCSE students to broaden their intellectual horizons! First, the nature and existence of God was discussed. A potentially heavy start to the day,

11

Dr Vardy presented the topic with modern pop-culture references making it not only easily digestible but oftentimes humorous.

After a brief explanation of rational arguments for God’s existence and asking (and proceeding

to

answer) questions such as ‘why do some of the most intelligent people believe in God?’, he swiftly moved on to the concepts of sin and salvation. Dr Vardy Discussed the Calvinist-Arminian debate and explored the nature of the Gospels as compilations with “different target audiences”.

Introducing this section on life and death, Dr Vardy asked ‘is death the end?’ – answering with two schools of thought: “either you’re Voldemort and you avoid death at all costs, or you’re Dumbledore and Sirius and 12

you see death as the next great adventure.” On reflection, this statement encapsulated the day: relatable yet thought provoking; Memorable and easily discussed.

Next there was an exploration into the validity of being an eschatological verificationist (someone who believes only the afterlife will reveal true meaning in religious language) through the viewpoints of several theologians and philosophers, drawing connections to the topics discussed earlier. After all this, it was time for a brief lunch break.

The afternoon session was dominated by a discussion on the topic ‘which is more important; the sanctity of life or the quality of life?’ Sanctity of life refers to the life that God gives humans and quality of life to the standard of life. This topic begun with Dr Vardy educating us on the beliefs that different religions hold followed by his own views. Christianity, one of the religions we study at GCSE, argues that the sanctity of life is more important, as this is greatest gift a human can receive and therefore regardless of the quality of it, 13

it has to be treasured. Because of this, abortion and euthanasia are frowned upon in Christianity, raising some fascinating questions such as: Is getting an abortion acceptable in the event of rape? If someone is suffering so greatly is the use of euthanasia allowed?

After Dr Vardy has finished speaking he handed the microphone over to the students to take part in a debate on sanctity of life versus quality of life. The debate was insightful, and many Habs boys shared their views to the people in attendance. This bought a close to the conference and a wonderful, educational day that all the boys were thankful they went on. Definitely a trip that any student studying T&P at GCSE should be looking forward to!

14

Report from the Year 13 Theology Conference on 22nd November 2019 Jasper Federman U6H1 A group of year 13 Theology students had the opportunity to listen to the renowned theologian Dr Peter Vardy speak on the issue of ‘Language’.

Through three lectures and a debate ranging from discussions of Maimonides to Wittgenstein, students from across the country were kept engaged and had the opportunity to further their studies. The first lecture questioned apophatic theology and the so called Via 15

Negativa before moving to discuss Aquinas’ doctrine of Analogy and Tillich’s attempt to preserve meaning through symbol. Dr Vardy later brought the students’ minds to the 20th century with the Verification Principle and Karl Popper’s alternative standard of meaning with the Falsification principle. Dr Vardy went on to tackle the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein who himself mentioned that only two people would truly grasp the concepts of his works; Dr Vardy attempted to be one!

He

explained

Wittgenstein’s

ideas

of

meaning

depending on how words correspond with reality and this view’s drastic implications. A final debate was held amongst all student present where Habs pupils were heavily involved in both rebutting Dr Vardy’s assertions and engaging with the motion “This house believes that the statement ‘Sex before marriage is wrong’ is meaningless”. This question discusses the ideas of metaethics rather than sexual ethics, focussing on the validity of a statement as meaningful or not, rather than the intricate details of the question around sex before marriage.

16

Report from reading circle with The Sage Train author Nicky Hansell, Library, 9th October 2019 Wong Kheng Hshin 9J2 On 9th October, a group of interested students had the privilege of discussing the book The Sage Train with its author, Nicky Hansell, during her visit to our School.

Ms Hansell holds a degree in English and Theology from Trinity College, Cambridge, and taught Philosophy and Ethics at Richmond School in Yorkshire.

17

The Sage Train explores

Ethics

through the eyes of

Friedrich

Nietzsche

and

G.K. Chesterton.

It

discusses

Natural

Law

theory (Aquinas), hedonistic egoism (Aristippus), Utilitarianism (Mill), Categorical Imperatives (Kant), the Verification Principle (Ayer), Social Contract theory (Hobbes), Virtue ethics (Aristotle), and perspectives on God (Spinoza). This discussion is conducted through scenarios where characters must make moral decisions, hence bringing theory into practical application.

For example, a friar must decide whether to commit euthanasia and kill his sister who is in pain. In theory, the action is supported by the principle of double effect, where there is an undesirable and a positive effect. In practice, Aquinas defends it by saying that the friar would not be committing euthanasia with an intent to 18

kill, but to relieve pain, hence his action is justifiable and right.

In another example, Kant’s servant must choose between letting a boy be executed or bribing a magistrate to save that boy’s life. This scenario allows readers to apply Kant’s two categorical imperatives of universality and treating people as ends-in-themselves.

When the servant chooses to bribe the magistrate, he flouts both imperatives. Hence, while he does save a life, he ultimately suffers a downfall.

Ms Hansell conducted a lively and interesting discussion during her visit. She first asked the participants for their ideas of morality. Based on multiple responses such as Divine Command theory and more, the group discussed the source of morality, including family, community, society, and personal belief.

Subsequently, the group explored Greek ideas, such as those of Socrates and Plato. Participants discussed Plato’s analogy of the cave and Aristotle’s four causes, as 19

knowledge of these Greek ideas was vital to understanding current theories. Finally, Aristotle’s version of virtue ethics was discussed. The group applied that model to the case of a recent fatal traffic incident where the driver, a diplomat’s daughter, returned to the US during investigations, and discussed whether it was right for her to return to face the investigations. Exploring this case through Rule Utilitarianism and other theories of morality, the group arrived at different perspectives as to the “moral rightness” of whether she should or should not return to Britain. Since the present study of philosophy started from the Greeks, this discussion allowed the group to more deeply understand their concepts.

The participants clearly enjoyed the discussion.

Multiple good questions were posed, and responses were lively and creative. For example, when discussing Plato’s idea of the Forms, a participant pointed out the Third Man argument and then, using this argument, suggested that family was the source of morality. Based on my understanding of his ideas, I would support the 20

idea that family generates a more “complete” version of the self. As an individual, we act in ways that we think correct, and since we inherit morality from our parents, the “complete” version of self must include their ideas.

However, by extension, the unit of family builds upwards, so the self must be shaped by the universal source too. This opens the possibility of inclusion of morality that is considered as “wrong” or “flawed”, and hence would not satisfy the idea that family is the sole source of morality.

In my opinion, the discussion was very relevant for present day affairs, where developments in technology and politics can create moral dilemmas for people.

Having had the privilege of expressing some of my views during the discussion, I am interested in further exploring my understanding of Ethics in the following areas.

Firstly, in the book, we do not explore Ethics through an existentialist perspective. It could be argued that we as beings-for-itself create and give meaning to the world and its variety of beings-in-itself. Morality is formed as 21

much by what we “transfer” to the world. This existentialist perspective may therefore be at odds with the book’s assertion that people “search” for a moral absolute. The interplay would be fascinating to analyse.

Furthermore, Natural Law theory depends on the existence of basic goods that leads to us forming laws about those goods. However, in the book, the question of why those goods are considered “good” is not addressed. This grounding problem is essential for our understanding of morality and ethics. For example, a sadist may not value others’ lives. While Aquinas proposes that God endows goods such as life with meaning and “goodness”, this leads to the Euthrypo Dilemma. For example, the sadist’s behaviour invites us to question whether God makes these goods good because he orders that, or that the goods are good inherently and God is simply telling us that they are good. This leads us to further question the “true source” of goodness. If the goods are good inherently, what makes them good?

22

I would also suggest that we further explore Utilitarianism as presented in the book, which mostly focuses on Mill’s concept of Act Utilitarianism, with the original concept of the Felicific Calculus expanded to take into account the “quality” of the pleasure (i.e. whether it is a “higher” or “lower” pleasure). This idea could be further explored. I would suggest that the effect on society be a variable of the perceived “quality” of happiness in the Felicific Calculus. Pleasures like drink and sexual desire may be more harmful to society than the perceived “finer” pleasures of theatre and literature, for example.

Ultimately, Ethics is a nuanced subject and it would be difficult to fully explain it in a single book or article. For more information, one can and should also look online or at other sources!

23

SIXTH FORM

Essays addressing the question Is religion responsible for extremism?

Sixth Form Winner – Jay Treon L6R1 Extremism is defined as the holding of extreme political or

religious

views,

often

linked

to

fanaticism.

Axiomatically, religion plays a role – but how close are these extreme views to those defined and preached by religious scripture, and is it truly culpable? In assessing religions’

link

to

extremism,

factors

such

as

environment, education and misconception must be explored, and how they lead to such misplaced dogmatism. Politically, religion can go so far as to be used as an instrument by campaigns, as their standpoints are vital for success. Below the surface, all forms of extremism can be reduced to an underlying radicalisation, which can take place through various means such as upbringing, deprivation (economic and 24

social) and social media. The combination of these factors gives rise to a measured conclusion about the unseen impact of religion on our lives, and how responsible it is for extremism. Whilst no religion is immune to extremism, this essay specifically explores the debate on contemporary AlQa’eda influenced terrorism/extremism due to the volume of research available.

Marc Sageman separates the radicalisation process into four prongs: firstly, a sense of ‘moral outrage’ which acts as a catalyst for doubt about the world’s attitude towards your ethno-religious community; for example, the killings of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Following this, a specific and extreme interpretation of the world – “war against Islam” or similar. Then, an example of how there is institutionalised racism entrenched into all secular states in the West, where seemingly Islamophobic policy, media narratives and discrimination are highlighted (valid or not). Most importantly, mobilisation through social networks e.g. forums and chat rooms where similar minded people 25

can vent their views and exacerbate others.

The

importance of the internet is debatable, there is little empirical evidence that it plays a deciding role, more so a facilitating and enabling input, making it more accessible and easier to become radicalised due to the nature of the open forum which encourages extremist rhetoric.

Radicalisation serves to create a hostile predisposition towards those external to their community, a pathway to extremism. Extremism remains a precursor of terrorism, requiring extra motivation. But what role does religion play? Violent Islamic radicalisation derives its authority from a particularly unique interpretation of Islam. Equally relevant, the use of “God’s Will� used

by George W Bush when justifying the Iraq war, and also scriptural justification playing a huge role in the IsraelPalestine conflict exemplifies the extent of how prevalent religion is used as a tool for provoking support and weaponization. It is important to stress the plurality and diversity of beliefs within all Abrahamic religions, and each contains violent passages currently dismissed 26

by many followers. The proportion of extremists compared to religious people is so minute that it cannot be considered truly representative of either the religion or certainly the millions of peaceful followers.

To explain how religion can lead to political extremism the power of their inherently intertwined relationship must be analysed. Alignment with a political party due to their religious standpoint does not necessarily mean either belief is extremist. However, if a party’s identity is its religion, it gives them free reign to adopt whatever policies they would like (which could be extremist) as their support would be unwavering. Political views validated by religious language abuses the natural appeal of voting for someone with a similar ideology to your own, when their convictions could be entirely fictitious and meaningless. It must be recognised that not all forms of political extremism stem from a certain religious outlook, but the two are likely to exacerbate each other, making it hard to discover where the beliefs came from.

27

“Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a method by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective”. (Pape 2005).

An analysis of Pape’s writing allows us to postulate that the exploitation of religious identity feeds into the political polarisation intended by many movements.

Examples of this being ‘born again’ Christianity, the Hindutva movement and the Shariah-isation of Indonesia. The main cause for concern is when there is support for extremism from the state, resulting in a misguided sense of identity. An overpowering sense of collective identity is a breeding ground for segregation and dogmatism, and therefore hostility to those unfamiliar. Whilst the role of religion here is certainly instrumental, it is sometimes used as a tool for unification rather than it necessarily being the end goal.

Religious discourse is a malleable instrument that can be used to justify a wide range of behaviours and it is likely that that religion is being used to mask real motivations for terrorism deflecting attention from the 28

actual reasons behind the use of terrorist tactics: e.g.

Hamas’ suicide bombings against Israeli civilians are not generated by religious ideas, but are an effort to end Israeli occupation. Moreover, Al-Qaeda documents claim God has sanctioned the punishment on the West, with the right to destroy not just villages and cities but rob wealth. This is not only a religious message, but also an economic one.

Secular ethnonationalist groups like the IRA are as likely as groups who define themselves as religious to carry out such attacks. Robert Pape argues the same about suicide bombers: many suicide attacks have been carried out by secular groups such as the Tamil Tigers.

Religious promises do not explain why individuals would seek to kill ordinary people in the first place.

Psychiatrists heading the Gaza mental health project have identified two roots of violent actions: trauma and revenge. The origin of the sense of honour so important to militant fighters is often attributed to their religion, but also for family honour and dignity. Are they one and

29

the same? Or has the conflation of religion and identity become so prevalent that they are indistinguishable?

Consider a Syrian boy born 15 years ago, having grown up in conflict, persecution and targeted violence, an instinctive or taught hatred for the West could be a driving factor for joining an extremist group. It is unclear what proportion of religious people live their life for that purpose, as it could be argued that simply a belief

in

God

Fundamentalist

would

constitute

religion

provides

that a

outlook.

‘welcoming

community’ as well as an expression for aggression, often leading to terrorism which they feel is justified.

Naturally, devotion does not always lead to extremism, but it would enhance the effects of radicalisation if familiar religious quotes were explained in a different light. Religion provides a guarantee for self-worth and righteousness, and those brought up in an environment in which they feel misunderstood and alienated by and from the surrounding people can inevitably lead to hostility, outlined above. Any opposition threatens to invalidate their primary reason for living, which could 30

contribute to a descent into violence. Terrorism is not a result of strict ideology (religion) but rather a reaction to the perception of threatened decline and loss of status.

In terms of the IRA, made up of devout Catholic Nationalists (but defined as secular), who were suffering from the perception of a real threat from the British Army, it could be argued that their ability to perpetrate violence and targeted terror was made possible through the rigid belief in their ideology. Amanda Munroe argues that humans would find it psychologically difficult to commit such acts if not committed to such ideologies.

Whilst Pape could be correct that religion may not the root cause of extremism, it plays a more significant role than a simple tool, as without it, people wouldn’t have a common ideology to unite over at all. Arguing the inherent power in religion is more convincing and realistic than denying it and reducing its effect to a tool.

31

There

are

promising

signs

of

inter-religious

collaboration, such as the King Abdullah International Centre

for

religious

Interand

Intercultural dialogue established by Spain

Saudi

Arabia,

and

Austria

with the support of the Holy See. KAICIID has united Muslim leaders of the Middle East with the heads of minority communities, under the striking headline of “combating violence in the name of religion”.

Furthermore, the vast collection of charities and support networks created through unification because of religion offers a different perspective on the effect of religion on the world. To name a few: CAFOD (the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development), Al Mizan Charitable Trust, Hare Krishna. All of these play huge roles in helping the homeless and those in war torn poverty. Religious charities raise £16 billion a year in England and Wales alone, displaying the trust placed in 32

them to do charity work that matters. Accrediting extremism with religion so willingly ignores larger and more widespread efforts such as these.

Currently, the growing threat of terrorism casts a shadow over many of our everyday lives. However the concept

of

restorative

justice

offers

possible

consolation. Firstly, the separation of identity and faith is a priority – to prevent alienation and segregation various things can be done, e.g. school trips to places of worship from a young age so children begin to develop a respect for all religions. An idealistic aim is to introduce unbiased education of past wars, highlighting that monstrosities are committed by both sides in any war. Although an unrealistic goal, given socialisation of ideas is unavoidable, it would be ideal to foster an openminded outlook in children whilst they are still impressionable and not cemented in the mindset of their parents’ potentially unproductive bias. It seems obvious that cohabitation of people from all faiths should be possible, but to ensure this, measures such as

33

these should be taken to encourage and promote progressive attitudes towards multi-faith communities.

In conclusion, the role of religion plays too large and powerful of a role in extremism for its input to be reduced to a tool; however the majority of instances of extremism use religion symbiotically with their pursuit of secondary objectives (economic, political etc.) in combination with radicalisation and environmental influences. Religion has conversely proved itself to create huge support for charitable ventures, and restorative justice offers hopeful consolation about the future of religions’ impact in violent extremism. It is rarely solely the only motivation for these distasteful views, and therefore it is responsible only to a limited extent.

34

Sixth Form Runner-up – Rishi Jobanputra L6H1 From Islamic State to the Taliban, there are hundreds of terrorist organisations that cite religion as their call to arms, at the heart of their existence. They use it to plan, carry out and justify atrocities, such as the infamous 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings, claiming responsibility for their crimes as if they are laudable achievements. All in the name of religion, they claim. Although, whether this is truly religion at the core of these groups, or some dark and twisted form which barely resembles the original faith in question is a different matter. This essay will attempt to shine some light on this and ask whether the answer matters.

Religion is one of the oldest concepts known to man, with one of the oldest known religious texts dating back to well over 4000 years ago, around 2600 BCE in the form of the Kesh Temple Hymn of Ancient Sumer. And, likewise, its symbiotic relationship with violence seems to stretch back far into ancient history, albeit not necessarily as far. The distinguished American scholar Mark Juergensmeyer, best known for his works on 35

religious violence, argues that religion and terrorism have been closely connected since before the Bible.

Regardless of what he says, we have a prime example, though it is relatively much more recent: the Crusades.

A series of religious conflicts, they date back to as early as 1095, where Pope Urban II called for military support for the Byzantine empire against the Seljuk Turk empire to claim Jerusalem. The response was so positive that Pope Urban II had unwittingly set the precedent for almost six centuries of Catholic Church sponsored conflict. Participants were absolved of all sin provided they confessed it in a penitential exercise; many took part with the prospect that such acts were holy, that they were God’s will and would lead to ascension to Heaven. Such institutionalised violence by the papacy is arguably the first case where the power of religion was abused to promote behaviour which would otherwise be denounced. It seems odd that an omnibenevolent God, as He is portrayed in Christianity, would advocate such acts of violence.

36

This appears to be the first extreme use of religion to manipulate the masses. A note to avoid confusion here: this essay isn’t taking the Marxist stance in saying that religion is inherently a means to control of the masses.

Rather, it can be (and generally only is) weaponised by fanatics and those with malicious intent. Religious warfare, once widely accepted and encouraged by major, official institutions, is now widely condemned by society, especially said institutions. Pope Francis has not called for Christians to incite conflicts in the name of religion; so, what has changed? The answer is rather obvious, in that we now have societies with great cultural diversity. Step onto the streets of London, and you will find people from a variety of faiths, from Christianity to Zoroastrianism. Go for a walk around your local area, and you might see a cathedral, a temple, a synagogue - or all three and more. Go back a couple centuries, and this was unheard of. I doubt very much that Pope Urban II knew what a gurudwara is - or even cared, for that matter - and therein lay the problem. The likes of Pope Urban II probably didn’t see these people 37

as people - more likely just as obstacles in their holy conquest. However, as religious groups interacted and mixed, it was inevitable that they would integrate into diverse communities, forming the foundations of the accepting society we are lucky enough to live in. Now we see why religiously justified acts of violence are far rarer as we recognise that people are all equal irrespective of their faiths. Persecution of ethnic minorities nowadays is not supported, but criticised.

One only needs to look at the recent example of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, China to see this. However, what is key is that they are ‘rare’ and not ‘non-existent’ - we still have extremist groups all over the world that have been built around their religious beliefs. To find out why they exist, and whether religion is at fault, we must look closer.

Take

Islamic

State.

Designated

as

a

terrorist

organisation by the United Nations, they follow a fundamentalist, jihadist approach to Sunni Islam. In essence, they deem past ways of traditional living as favourable and wish to return to a similar way of living 38

to the prophet Muhammad. They have committed ethnic cleansing and are infamous for their videos of executions of journalists, soldiers and more. Perhaps the

most

dangerous

thing

IS

do,

though,

is

radicalisation of Western citizens, driving them to committing acts of terrorism. The group claim to be a caliphate, an ‘Islamic State’, and to have authority over all Muslims around the world. Here, we can see quite clearly that this organisation has placed Islam at the root of their organisation, however warped a form you might argue it is, and their horrendous acts.

Does this mean we should then blame Islam for Islamic State? In short, no, but parts of the public seem to be doing so; according to an article by the Independent, 52% of the UK public thought that Islam posed a serious threat to Western civilisation in July 2017, though this has fallen to a still unacceptably large figure of 44%. The prospect of radicalisation, that terrorists are hiding amongst us, is arguably the scariest component of religious terrorism. It could be your neighbour, your colleague or even a relative - one needs to look no 39

further than the examples of ‘Jihadi John’ or Shamima Begum to see how real the possibility of home-grown terrorism actually is. What needs to be recognised is that these so-called Muslims who carry out these acts are not identified with by Muslims who do not.

Mainstream Muslim groups have rejected Islamic State’s claim of authority and deny that they are even Muslim. And yet, Islamophobia is still a real problem in Western civilisation. Fanatics seem to be responsible for marginalising those they say they are fighting for. It seems as clear as day that it is not Islam that IS are following, and that their views and actions do not reflect the views and actions of the general Muslim population.

How can a system of beliefs be to blame for widespread genocide and conflict?

Our case study has shown us a few things. Firstly, religion becomes warped by minorities to be wrongly used as justification for terrible acts. Secondly, this warping is not recognised by all of the public and can have serious consequences in how it drastically (and

40

incorrectly) sways public opinion of certain ethnic groups.

However, the third thing we learn is rather obvious: these groups have still ultimately sprouted from religion and religious beliefs, however wrong, distorted and dark they may be. We can argue that all these extremists who act in the name of religion are mistaken, and that they completely misinterpret the values and morals behind it, but religion is divisive. A Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian cannot all be right in their beliefs, as they contradict one another. However, we have no empirical evidence of who, if any, is right, and so as they argue, they become disenfranchised with other faiths, perhaps dismissing their ideologies entirely. This pushes them away from each other and to others of the same religion, which illustrates the divisive nature of religion. It doesn’t matter how it is interpreted, as people having different religions is just another way for them to be different from and feel separate from each other. In our quest to prove that our religion provides the right explanation for our existence and whether God exists, 41

and, if so, in what way, people can easily turn to violence to try to force their opinions onto those who refuse to agree. It becomes harder for people to integrate into one society and thus in this way religion can be said to be a cause of extremism.

Overall, religion has had varying responsibility for extremism over time. Previously, religion was used as a motivator for violence against others and thus could have been deemed largely responsible for extremism in times like the Crusades. The faith of Christians in God was abused by the Catholic Church as they outlined the Crusades as a religious duty, a holy act which Christians should do to ascend to Heaven. However, as time went on and societies become more multicultural and mixed, religious extremism became much less widespread and instead became mostly exclusive to fanatics such as followers of IS and the Taliban who hold widely criticised views which misrepresent the original faiths they claim to originate from. However, religion is where they come from, regardless of how it is interpreted and provides us with another way to be different to another 42

and argue over. It divides us further, along with other qualities such as race, class, political beliefs and essentially anything else that makes us different. Thus, whilst religion isn’t the sole factor in promoting extremism, it plays a role in leading to terrorism in how it separates ethnic groups and makes them more likely to feel antagonised by each other.

43

Sixth Form Runner-up – Ben Fox L6M1 Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of an authoritative power; namely a personal God, derivative of the position of monotheism; or gods. It is a continuous system of faith and worship with a flexible yet intransigent nature; open to new methodologies of practice and constructs but also tenaciously held accountable The five major

to

its

uncompromising

world religions

are:

laws.

Christianity,

Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, in terms of the number of believers or people that actively exercise this faith. Each religion is comprised and accompanied with a multitude of complications and intricacies that have the capability to produce mass conflict and war when colliding with each other. Is it the very concept of religion where extremism can be sourced, though?

Extremism is defined as the holding of extreme political or religious views; often termed as fanaticism. We observe cases of religious extremism frequently, making newspaper headlines like, ‘Religious extremists are using schools to narrow children's horizons and "pervert 44

education", England's chief inspector of schools has warned. Amanda Spielman said some community leaders see schools as vehicles to "indoctrinate impressionable minds" - with extremist ideology in some cases.’ The backlash of this corrupted view, with the involvement of young children, is dystopian to say the least. It begs the question of how we plan to shape our futures in a world dominated by religion and seemingly of hierarchy. In this essay I aim to explore demonstrations of extremism and their link to religion where we can ask the question, ‘Is religion responsible for extremism’?

The very basis of religion relies on a belief system as fundamental to its inner workings. In the cases inclusive of the postulation of the existence of God there must be a large degree of blind faith. In this way we achieve a line of rationality through a presumed irrational concept. It is apparent this statement is self-conflicting.

An argument cannot be both rational and irrational. On one hand we may view religion as a priori; in which case we may consult the works of philosophers like George Berkeley who argues God’s existence is the best possible 45

explanation for the coherence and consistency of our experiences and hence must exist. Conversely, we could view religion as a posteriori. Here, we seem to run into a problem. The concept of a posteriori subsists on experience. Put aside any religious scriptures or stories that recall the life of God on earth as Jesus incarnate or that give explanations of God’s nature; there is no definitive proof of the existence of God or of gods.

Therefore, when we view God in this regard, we simply cannot postulate his existence and hence circulate round to our original point: the rationality reached through irrationality.

Blind faith entails the belief in a higher power that you do not have conclusive proof of. Hence, it plausibly follows that believing in religion (as we said was the belief in and worship of an authoritative power; namely a personal God) seems irrational merely due to its lack of sufficient evidence. This is not to say religion is irrational ‘in itself’ and is not to say God definitely does not exist because these queries are all unknown hypotheticals. It is instead to say that belief in God 46

without proof contradicts relative human tendencies (the typical ‘seeing is believing’ ideology that argues we must experience something to be sure of its existence).

Now that we have stated that actively practicing religion may be seen as irrational (a generalised comment; we can still appreciate the aspect of relief and trust religion offers us which is a unique thing that cannot be disputed) it follows that there is a line of argument that we can formulate that is rational. It thus follows that: P1) I believe in religion; a God that is both transcendent and immanent to His creation.

P2) It is perfectly possible and plausible that there is no existence of this supposed God due to a lack of evidence.

P3) Yet I worship and pray to God in times of desperation; when I seek comfort.

P4) Because I am religious and believe in the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God I am willing to listen to his instruction and obey his commands

47

(such as when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac; stated in the Torah) C1) I am prepared to follow God blindly because He provides me with a sense of purpose and order.

This argument appears to be valid and deductive. It is rational. The issue is that its conclusion seems to contradict basic human inclination: the “seeing is believing� framework as stated before. Religion seems to reify the very notion of God from an idealistic construct into a definitive entity. What can we take away from this line of argument, though? We may infer that if people are willing to follow a God blindly and carry out acts for Him with the endeavour of strengthening faith and bonding with Him then here lies the problem. It is, in fact, in the minds of humans that extremism paces forward, for it is in the willingness and enthusiasm of humans that extremist acts may be carried out in vain.

48

Moreover, we may say that the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of humans is the cause. The Cosmological Argument stated by Aquinas gives us some insight into cause and the inevitability of effect. In this way, if our cause is the misunderstanding of religious scripture, it may also follow that the effect we observe is drastic; namely, acts of religious extremism.

This is because if people are willing and prepared to carry out orders given by God then it follows that they may also be willing and prepared to carry out acts of extremism or terrorism in the name of God; a form of misconstrued devotion. This is true of moderncontemporary society clearly as we see acts of extremism carried out with loose terms associated alongside. Therefore, we may justify the statement in saying religion is responsible for extremism in one way or another.

However, considering all this, I would like to portray possible counterarguments that can defend religion and the idea of a God existing. The main point and certainly the most obvious is to analyse the definition of 49

extremism. As we recalled, “Extremism is defined as the holding of extreme political or religious views; often termed as fanaticism”. So, to claim religion is the underlying cause of extremism is rather…well…extreme - because it only addresses half the issue.

Cases of political extremism are largely significant too.

The emergence of the civil and proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen and the “war on terror” against Islamic State in the Arab world has provoked both an implosion of some Middle East states and a breakdown of the old state system, exacerbating other chronic problems in the

MENA

region

(political

polarisation,

authoritarianism, corruption, a lack of accountability and democracy, poverty as well as high unemployment rates). Protests, dissent and violence erupted all over the region, but in some cases the “revolutions” have not had a positive epilogue. In Egypt, for instance, the uprisings against a dictatorial regime favoured a political change without a clear political horizon. The focal point of countless extremist organisations is solely political and more accurately, the change in political 50

systems. Here, there is no obscured link to religion. In fact, there is no link at all. Hence, we can defend religion and state that it is not responsible for extremism, or at least is not wholly responsible.

A second formulation, one that rebuts the ideas presented in the argument in favour of the statement, is the postulation of the existence of God. We understand this through Pascal’s Wager, an evaluation of human rationality and its link to belief in God. The wager can be summarised as the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise. It essentially explores all the conceivable possibilities of belief in God. It reaches the conclusion that belief in God is entirely rational for it serves as a guarantor of bliss, ensuring that if God does exist then one can attain entry to Heaven or any other form of paradise. Seemingly, we have now demonstrated the juxtaposition of rational (Pascal) and irrational (lack of proof) belief in God. This offers a further digestion of the question and to be more 51

specific, we may infer that irrational belief in God is responsible for extremism to a larger degree than rational belief. We may assume this because any irrational believer (one who is ignorant to the works of theology and philosophy) is more likely to misinterpret religious information whereas any rational believer, if displaying the rationale and reason to understand and conceptualise Pascal’s Wager, are presumably fully equipped and able to interpret religious information more delicately. In this case, religion is interwoven tightly with education. Under cetrus paribus (all other things held constant), for example emotional distress, an educated person is less likely to commit crime than an uneducated person because they are more informed of the consequences and may have a greater depth of knowledge regarding the prison system than the other.

It is with that given analogy, that I argue religion’s link to extremism relies heavily on the aspect of education.

Then, in giving an answer to this broad question, we may answer that religion is not responsible for extremism; whilst episodes of religious extremism 52

occur, it is at the heart of uneducated people that extremism occurs. Therefore, I will argue religion is not responsible; but like the five aggregates studied in Buddhism, religion is but one part that makes up a whole issue of extremism with education at its centre.

This is only reasonable to assume because if one truly believed in God, why would he/she be so desperate to directly disobey his instruction? We can safely assume then that their belief in God is fabricated, an excuse to proceed with otherwise inhumane activity.

I state that whilst there is controversy in tackling the question and it can be argued that religion is responsible, I conclude that the reasons behind acts of extremism - namely a lack of education and a multitude of other implications such as psychological damage, for example - are truly responsible for extremism and they are merely exercised through religion, perhaps because it is an easy platform for collaboration. Extremists take the very concept of religion, one built on trust, comfort and reliability, and deceivingly manipulate it to shape whatever dark and twisted views they hold. It is 53

precisely in this way that I argue religion is not responsible for extremism and draw the argument to a close with a special and relevant quote from Julian Casablancas, a performer for whom religion is very important: “Religion is never the problem; it’s the people who use it to gain power”.

54

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Essays addressing the question Should religion play a role in politics?

Middle School winner – Wong Kheng Hshin 9J2 I believe that religion should play a role in politics. This is because of the following reasons.

Firstly, religion shapes the way we think and act.

Religion tends to have commandments, which affect the way we behave. For example, the commandment in Christianity to love others as neighbours can influence us to act in ways that reflect this.

Of course, some would argue that we do not need religion to act “well”. Most humans would agree with some of the commandments of religion by default, for example the commandment that thou shalt not kill; we do not ‘need’ religion to understand that it is wrong to murder and kill. However, different religions can have

55

different yardsticks of morality. What if these conflict with our own yardsticks? To take the example of stoning adulterers, people of other religions may question whether adulterers deserve capital punishment in such a painful way. In fact, religion could reduce the effectiveness of philosophical dialogue as people may try to stay out of conflict with religion.

Yet, religion tends to have effects in that it helps us act better by giving us motivation in the form of eternal bliss should we act properly while on earth. Yes, we have morals; yet, without a reason to utilize them except our own intuition that it is good to do so, we are somewhat more vulnerable to not acting in these ways if we, for some reason, have interests that go against these moral laws.

Secondly, religion helps guide countries and states, and if multiple religions exist, this could ensure that the country or state is guided better in terms of making better decisions when responding to events.

56

I hold the opinion that religion should play a role in the executive branch. In a homogeneous country, since only one religion exists, this point is relatively moot.

However, in this modern globalized world, it is not uncommon to find more than one faith in a country.

Different faiths have different opinions about how the country should act, and with a diversity of faiths rather than one faith helping to guide the country, a country can make “wiser� decisions, or at the very least, more democratic decisions.

A government of the people, a congress or senate with multiple faiths, would be more nuanced in assessing policies and making new ones for the state to progress further with the different representations in mind.

Religion in this sense helps to guide not only individuals, but societies. If multiple religions can play a role in guiding a society, with the people or at least representatives of the people then evaluating and choosing which is the best for their country, this would help the country assess and respond to both international and internal affairs in a better way.

57

There may be real problems though. The system of selection of representatives may ensure that the representatives may not fully be proportionate to the make-up of faiths in a country. Measures should hence be taken to prevent this, requiring rules to be put in place to ensure that all religions and faiths play a role in guiding the country and not simply the majority religion. There is, as a rule, a danger of one single religion completely dominating politics, but if multiple religions play roles and contribute to politics, this becomes less of a risk.

If these measures are taken, including religion in politics would benefit the state in terms of making better decisions and taking more suitable action. After all, the diversity in faiths would presumably give differing opinions on how to proceed, which as a rule increases depth and thoroughness of executive activity.

With multiple religions guiding a country and the people selecting which path to follow, this would help the country and the people, as previously mentioned.

58

We must also recognize that religion does sometimes lead to tribalism in that people divide themselves based on religion, which tends to lead to discrimination. In fact, some would even argue that religion does explicitly endorse this. For example, in Deuteronomy 13:6-10, the Bible explicitly states that “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery”.

59

Furthermore, majority religions may suppress other faiths: the majority religion is prescribed to the citizens of the country and that those who do not worship in such a way are punished and suppressed.

How then should we live in a diverse society where multiple faiths coexist in a society? With mutual respect and respect for diversity, aspects of religion that advocate tolerance and empathy, like commandments that tell us to love others, are common ground that the society can build upon. These are, to me, the major parts of religion. In fact, to paraphrase Joseph Fletcher, love is the ultimate commandment capable of vetoing all other commandments. Yes, while a majority religion should carry some weight because it is the majority religion, there should still be respect for other religions such that they are able or indeed encouraged to express their views, with rules in place to prevent the occurrence of aggressive proselytizing, for example. If these different faiths act as a source of unity rather than division, all parties can benefit.

60

Ultimately, religion should play a role in politics.

Religion offers us guidance, and if multiple religions can guide a society, as it were, the guidance offered would probably be much more nuanced and elaborate. It helps to keep everyone involved, and multiple viewpoints tend to lead to ‘better’ decisions and results. Yet, rules must be taken in order to avoid the extremities of discrimination or division because of religion, in order to ensure that the state can reap the rewards of diversity and unity that this brings.

61

Middle School Runners-up – Ozair Surti 10S1 and Krish Ghadia 10C2 Religion is a very influential force in many ways: it impacts what people say, do, eat and present themselves. However, should religion influence the way a country is run and affect the residents of countries and economies? In this essay two countries, which largely differ in how religion impacts their decisions, will be compared. Firstly, Saudi Arabia, which is Muslimmajority country that follows strict Sharia Law, will be looked at. On the other hand, the UK is a diverse country with Christian traditions, but has a large number of non-Christians.

Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy, and, because of this, religious minorities are not allowed to practice their religion publicly but can practice them discreetly.

Moreover, to be a Saudi citizen one must be Muslim.

The official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Sunni of the Hanbali school, in its Salafi form. The advantages of 62

being a Muslim majority country include unity and lack of conflict within the country. There are likely to be less disputes of religions since the country only allows one to be practised publicly. Despite the lack of freedoms provided to non-Muslims, Saudi Arabia hasn’t been involved in a civil war within the last 100 years. This is because all the residents have the same worldview and perspective when it comes to politics as Saudi Arabia follows Sharia law which is devised from the Quran.

Therefore, limiting the religion via policies and government action can being higher levels of peace and prosperity to a country.

In Saudi Arabia there are also negatives due to the role religion plays in their politics. The main point of contention is that of is a religion dominates the country then the views that the religion follows is implemented very strongly. An example of this is the fact that women in Saudi Arabia didn’t vote until very recently as this is very surprising for such a developed nation. This is due to the views of some Muslims in the country. Generally, there is great lack of freedoms provided to Saudi 63

Arabian women; all other developed countries have encouraged equality and outlawed any form of discrimination due to gender much earlier on. There is also an issue with religious freedom in the country.

Hindus residing in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to build a mandir to congregate and worship. This could cause resentment between the governing Muslim religion and the Hindus (and other minority religions), and potentially lead to conflict. This demonstrates that, when religion enters politics and religious freedoms are not practiced, the differences in the culture and religion of the majority and minority can be detrimental to the stability of the country.

Thus far, only the social effects and philosophical arguments as to whether religion should play a role in politics have been presented. However, religious polices and religion-based governments have a large impact on the economic standing of a country. Saudi Arabia, for example, has the fourteenth highest GDP in the world but, does this have anything to do with its religious policies? In fact, surprisingly, it might, as companies in 64

areas with a higher level of religiosity tend to follow ethical norms that are proven to be conducive to a stable economy (Callen 2015). However, this may not be the most important factor as Saudi Arabia’s large reserves of oil are the main reason that it is so wealthy.

Thus, religion does not largely, in Saudi Arabia’s example, affect the economy when it plays a big role in its politics.

The United Kingdom The United Kingdom has a religious monarch and background, but religious views are not imposed on anyone in the country and religious freedom is one of its core values. The country’s history is one which is enshrined in Christian traditions. The religion of the country does not enter politics and has become more of a tradition in this current age. The UK is a very diverse country, with the population consisting of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians and many others. Advantages of a religiously diverse country include providing a free environment with no religious biases - meaning no faith is marginalised. Unlike Saudi Arabia, everyone in the 65

UK has the right to express their religion publicly, allowing everyone to coexist peacefully. In the UK, religious education is compulsory, where students learn about other religious customs and worldviews, ensuring students respect and understand different religions.

Religious

education

doesn’t

receive

the

same

importance in Saudi Arabia where Islam is taught in higher regard compared to other religions.

Even though the United Kingdom has many positives to religious freedom there are some negative aspects. In the UK there are a record amount of hate crimes in England due to religion. As people of all religions are together this may cause tension due to differences that the religion may share and the way that they interpret other religions. This problem is barely present in Saudi Arabia as all the residents are of the same religion and sect of that religion which means there are minor differences in their relationships with one and another.

In countries like the UK there is also a case of nonintegration as the communities based on religion due to its diversity the people of the same religion stay 66

together and do not join with those from different cultures. If there is one predominate religion, then this problem will not be faced to the extreme it is in the UK. The United Kingdom stands at 9th place in the world GDP rankings. What should be noted is that the United Kingdom, a country preaching freedom of religion, ranks 5 places above Saudi Arabia, a country which largely imposes Islam onto its citizens. Does this mean that religion being prominent in politics have an impact on the countries’ economies? The United Kingdom’s economy benefits from religious liberty, which has been proven to increase global competitiveness and thus encourages more firms, and the entire economy, to be more successful (Snyder 2014).

Overall, when religion enters politics, religious freedoms are, at least partly, obstructed. Religious freedoms are particularly important for a stronger sense of equality and freedom in the country and, in some ways, also supports economic stability. In conclusion, religion should not play a role in politics because of its restrictions on freedoms and equality.

67

Middle School Runner-up – Harry Davis 11R2 Life in the UK today often involves political discussions, whether it be in school, coffee shops or on the Tube.

Occupying much of the news, front pages of tabloids and all forms of social media, politics is inescapable.

This raises the question, should the religious beliefs of politicians interfere with their jobs and should religion play a part in the laws within a country to suit those who believe in the main religion of a country?

Every separate religion has a completely unique set of laws, whether it is keeping Kosher in Judaism or fasting for the month of Ramadan in Islam, no two religions are the same. With almost every country in the world being a secular state it would be impossible to set laws encompassing everybody’s religious beliefs.

In Saudi Arabia the state requires all citizens to be Muslim. As you can tell already Religion controls the state and its laws. Out of the Basic Law’s 83 articles, 23 refer

to

religion,

declaring

that

the

country’s

constitution is the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. There 68

are also no political parties in Saudi Arabia but instead the Monarchy is the central political institution. Also, the legal system in Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia Law which is a law derived from the Qur’an. This shows that religion plays a predominant role in the political decisions of Saudi Arabia. However Saudi Arabia abstained from the United Nations vote adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying it contradicted Sharia law. It is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes freedom of religion. By not signing this act Saudi Arabia takes away the people’s freedom to believe in anything other than what they have been taught. This shows that Religion governing politics suits those who are very Religious, but unfortunately that is not everyone.

Only a few 100 miles North of Saudi Arabia is the country of Israel, the only Jewish state in the world.

After its foundation as a country in 1948 its politics were dominated by the Zionist party who believe in upholding their Jewish identity and most importantly 69

the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people.

As you can imagine political laws are heavily influenced

by Judaism - for example it is illegal to import nonkosher meat into Israel. One law which has sparked criticism is the lack of buses running during the Holy Sabbath. In Israel busses stop running on Friday afternoon and start again on Saturday nights so that the country of Israel can maintain its Jewish character and observe the Holy Sabbath. For the religious believers in Israel’s major cities this is seen as correct but for the less religious or the non-Jews this law is a nuisance. This has sparked multiple debates in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) over the years but has been shot down every time by the orthodox politicians who want to uphold Israel’s Jewish inheritance. Especially in cities like Tel-Aviv, which is bustling with people wanting to sunbathe on the beach every Saturday and very few people rushing to attend Synagogue, it shows that the majority of people would prefer busses to run on Saturdays. Politics in Israel trys to aid those who believe in Judaism strongly but some people who do not care as 70

much about religion in Israel see the mixing of religion and politics as more of a hindrance than a privilege.

As I write this, there is a general election right around the corner in the UK. With the Conservative Party and the Labour Party once again battling for a majority of seats in the House of Commons, the people, as always, are split. This year, though, it seems that one of the reasons causing this split is religious.

The BBC released a panorama documentary in the summer called “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?� Anti-Semitism is the act of being hostile towards believers of Judaism or showing prejudice against Jews. To summarise the

documentary, 8 former members of the Labour Party stepped out of the shadows and shared their shocking experiences at meetings. Many stated that Labour 71

members would post on social media anti-Semitic cartoons and also make outrageous accusations claiming Jews created ISIS and caused 9/11. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the party have denied being anti-Semites and have stated that any form of anti-Semitic behaviour is not welcome in the Labour Party. This is a key example of Religion playing a role in politics as some Jewish people would not feel safe living in the UK under a government who have been accused of being anti-Semitic. It has got to the point where according to the Jewish Chronicles 47% of the Jewish community in the UK would “seriously consider� emigrating if Corbyn rose to power. People do not want to vote for the Labour party purely for religious reasons and not because they disagree with their socialist ideology which should not be the case. This suggests that religion is playing a role in British politics.

While the Labour party is accused of anti-Semitism, the Conservative party has people accusing them of Islamophobia, which is a dislike of or prejudice against 72

believers of Islam, especially as a political force. Earlier this year a number of Conservative Party members were suspended for posting or endorsing Islamophobic material online. Also, former Tory MEP Sajjad Karim stated in an interview with the BBC that very senior members of the party, including a serving minister, have previously used Islamophobic language towards him and about him.

This is completely unacceptable no matter who it comes from and it shouldn’t be heard coming from the UK’s leading political Party. During the race to become the new leader of the Conservative party this year all 5 candidates agreed an investigation should be held looking into Islamophobia in the Party. There has been no sign of such an investigation, and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has said that the Conservative party demonstrated an “unwillingness to deal with bigotry seriously”. Such actions could sway the vote of a strong believer of Islam, not due to political views but instead due to religious circumstances as they would

73

not want someone who doesn’t care about their religion running the country.

In a world where politics and religion are intertwined, they should both interact positively to aid the people in a world where they are allowed to live freely and express their religious beliefs. Currently, in certain areas, religion plays a significant role in politics but for the worse and not the better. Religion and politics should be kept separate in the future: if religious laws were enforced in a country it would not favour everybody so while some people may benefit from such laws others would not. Billions of people’s lives everyday are affected heavily by religion, but it is an entirely separate entity to politics and therefore the two should not mix due to the varying beliefs and worldviews of the human race. To respect people’s religion and beliefs religion should not play a role in the politics of contemporary society.

74

JUNIOR SCHOOL

Essays addressing the question Does religion make world peace impossible?

Junior School Winner - Milo Sinclair 8R1 There is a story told of an old man, Moishe, who every morning for 60 years went to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Hearing this story, one day a young man went up to him. “What do you pray for when you pray every day?” he asked Moshe.

“World peace” Moshe replied, “and especially peace amongst Jews and Muslims”.

“And are the prayers working”, the young man earnestly asked.

Moshe shook his head sadly. “I don’t know”, he said.

“Sometimes I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall”.

75

Jokes like this remind us of the commonly held view that religion makes world peace impossible. But the sad truth is deeper than that. Human nature makes world peace

impossible.

A

recent

survey

for

the

Encyclopaedia of Wars analysed 1,763 wars in recorded history in order to understand to what extent religion was a driver of war. The authors classified wars by what caused them, e.g. conflicts over money, power, family etc. Only 123 of the wars were caused by religion. This was interesting because that only accounts for 7% of the wars that have taken place. If we look at deaths in warfare, religion takes just 2% responsibility for all deaths in war.

These numbers may seem low, but digging into the details shows they are not. For example, 3,000 people died in the inquisition and 1 – 2 million during the crusades, but 35 million people died in the First World War. In terms of suffering, religious wars are much less impactful than secular warfare. And secular wars are so much more common.

76

Most of the ancient wars were over territory, control of borders to secure trade routes, or political authority. In Medieval times wars were typically about control and wealth; often these wars were supported by religious authorities, such as the Catholic Church, but were not started by them. And many wars, such as the Mongol Asian rampage which killed around 30 million people, had no religious roots at all. More modern wars, including

the

American

revolution, Napoleonic

Campaign, Russian Revolution, World War 1, and the Vietnam war were neither caused by religion nor did they develop a meaningful religious element. World War 2, for example, was not caused by religion but it could be argued that the Jewish genocide meant it had a religious element. But in common with most wars it would be more reasonable to say religion was not the cause, and most of the time not a feature.

77

This is also true of genocide and mass murder which is incompatible with world peace. For example, in Russia and China’s communism, an explicitly nonreligious ideology was the cause of 100 million deaths. Not many were killed for religious reasons in these cases.

Most religions try to be as peaceful as possible. For example, in the Jewish holy book, the Torah, it says “When you approach a city to do battle with it you should call to it in peace”. This means that you should always try to find another solution to war, seeking and asking for peace. Whilst there are people prosecuting wars in the name of G-d, even recently where it has seemed that ISIS and others have caused an increase in religious warfare, religion is still a minority cause: since

78

2013 only 14% of wars have been caused by religion, and many wars have no religious drivers at all.

In most religions, peace is the highest goal that we can achieve; but humans, being human, fall consistently short of this goal. And it is humans being human that makes world peace impossible, not religion.

79

Junior School Runner-up – Jai Shah 8C2 This is a very important question for society and can be answered from many different perspectives. Many people follow religions around the world and there will obviously be conflict between the different beliefs, but the question is whether this can be stopped. For this essay, I will define world peace as “an ideal of freedom, peace and happiness among and within all nations and/or people. World peace is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare.� Warfare and violence appear prominently in this definition, so the question is whether religion is the

main

source

of

conflict. I will split this complicated question into two arguments,

for

and

against

whether

religion makes world peace impossible.

The argument for religion making world peace impossible is that everyone believes different things to 80

each other which always ends up in conflict. “Once you start believing in something that is not yet a reality for you, you are bound to be in conflict with someone else because somebody else is bound to believe something else” is a valuable quote from Jaggi Vasudev (an Indian author also known as Sadhguru). If there are no religions, there will be no different beliefs, therefore no conflict. However, “as long as people believe in something conflict is inevitable” is another wise quote from Jaggi Vasudev.

Another point as to why religion makes world peace impossible is that everyone interprets ideas differently which leads to religions thinking it is fine to fight each other because they are protecting the name of God. The problem with this is that religions preach how they are very humble and peaceful which in fact is incorrect as there are conflicts due to differences in religion; therefore, if the concept of God exists then the concept of conflict will always exist. You can do the most evil of things but if you think that God is fine with you doing this, you will continue doing these things. Religious 81

people who do this think that God is fine with this and that they will go to heaven when they die. I believe this thinking is wrong and we should try to be the best person we can be. My final quote from Jaggi Vasudev is very pertinent as he says “the conflict in the world is not between good and evil, though people always claim it is so, it is not true. It is always one man's belief versus another man's belief�.

The argument that religion does help to make world peace possible is that it is just a matter of time. There may be many news stories discussing how religions fight each other but there are as many organisations helping to fight this problem. These organisations are bringing in religious leaders from around the world and are having countless discussions on how they can resolve their problems. It is only a matter of time before all the religions finally respect each other and each other’s beliefs. Over the years, we are already seeing how there is an improvement in tolerance to other religions; for example, in Western countries there has been an increase in understanding and tolerance towards 82

Eastern religions such as Islam and Hinduism.

Additionally, all religions promote peace and nonviolence, and an example is Jainism which promotes peace by being non-violent to all living things. Jains do not eat meat, fish or anything grown underground as these involve killing animals; they cover their mouths so not to kill any insects when they breathe and they also sweep away insects, so they don’t step on them to preserve life. “World peace begins with inner peace� is a philosophy promoted by the Dalai Lama (the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism) which means that to achieve world peace, we need to be at peace with ourselves.

Many organisations are helping to spread the word of this philosophy which will help us to get one step closer to achieving world peace.

To conclude, I believe that differences in religion do create a lot of violence around the world through conflict today, but over time, religious leaders will come

together

that world

peace

and resolve their differences will be achieved in 83

the

so

future.

Therefore, differences in religion do not make world peace impossible.

84

Junior School Runner-up – Adam Smith 8H It may be argued that religion makes world peace impossible since many faiths have or had orders to kill non-believers or to sacrifice people to their Gods. For example, priests of the Aztec religion ripped out the beating hearts from victims, flaying (skinning someone with a sharp knife) the corpse and then wearing their skin as clothes. The victims sacrificed came from defeated enemy tribes.

Many

ostensibly

pacifistic

religions

have

been

interpreted in such a way by scholars that extremism is advocated. For example, several terrorist groups have emerged out of Islam, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda who have committed terrorist attacks and horrid human rights abuses, even though the Islamic religion itself is peaceful. In radical Islamic states, the political leaders promote practices like Female Genital Mutilation, the Killing of Apostates and Jihad, even though Islam itself does not advocate these practices. In the past, the Christian religion resorted to conversion as an excuse

85

for brutal warfare to claim territories, like the Christian Crusades or the Conquest of the Americas.

On the other hand, throughout history, Religion has been an essential building block of society, from the Sumerians to the Egyptians, to the Greeks, Romans and Western civilizations. All religions promise either “a better place” (Heaven, Nirvana) or for the world to be at peace. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the belief in karma (kamma), which is the belief in how your good deeds and bad deeds affect your next life, makes people strive to do good. In Christianity, we learn from Jesus that “if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38-42); Jesus advocates peace over violence and rejects “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Hammurabi’s Code 1792-1750 BC). Moreover, in Jainism, its followers should not eat any food that can cause harm, whether it is direct as in the slaughter of animals or indirect, by washing root vegetables hence removing and killing microorganisms.

However, offshoots of religions are often persecuted by their parent religions. For example, the Babai faith isn’t 86

recognised as a separate religion by Islam, from which it branched off in the 18th century. In the days of the Roman Empire, when Christianity was still a small sect in Judea, the Jewish population branded them blasphemers and stoned to death and crucified many.

Likewise, if the offshoot grew larger and stronger than the parent religion, then the parent was often persecuted, like Judaism in Medieval Christianity and in Islam.

Religion has been abused to exploit the people, like the Popes in the late Medieval Era and the Renaissance, who taxed starving people heavily and used the money to build great palaces for themselves. In contrast, religious leaders helped societies flourish: for example, in the 16th century and earlier, the monasteries in Europe helped communities thrive by managing agriculture and giving out money and food.

On the other hand, in the Communist states such as the USSR, Poland and China, religion was opposed by the State. Perhaps unexpectedly, in 1980’s and 90’s the Catholic Church in Poland was a driving force behind 87

the peoples’ protests against the regime and helped to free Poland from Communism.

Human morality is based on religious teachings, which means that when conflicting religions clash, morals clash. This is what happened when Islam met Hinduism, wars which still have reverberations today.

Nowadays, religions send out peaceful missions to help people in need instead of promoting violent warfare.

However, religion creates morals which help to control the brutality of human nature. If we took religion out of existence altogether then the world would quickly fall into disarray since people would lack moral consistency.

Individuals have different morals from each other by default which, without a feeling of community and shared principles, would lead to violence.

In conclusion, I think that Religion does not make world peace impossible since, apart from some certain faiths which advocate brutality and violence, most violent enterprises use religion as an excuse: to get out of the blame or by interpreting teachings cruelly. Religion 88

supports differing beliefs and types of worship but provides a common basis for shared morality and community. “When there is peace among religions, there will be peace in the world� (Dalai Lama).

89

OPEN SUBMISSIONS

The Philosophy of The Truman Show by Jed Wagman

The Truman show is a film loved by many people that involves Truman Burbank - played by Jim Carrey - who lives his life inside a television show. Essentially, every aspect of his life, other than his own actions, are controlled by someone else. For example, his “mother”, his “best friends” and his “wife” are all paid actors. He lives his whole life being watched by five thousand cameras until (spoiler alert) eventually he realises what’s happening and attempts to escape.

90

One big philosophical issue this raises is the idea of scepticism. Scepticism is the theory that certain knowledge is impossible. The film raises this idea as Truman spends his whole life believing that it is real.

Whilst his life is technically real, it isn’t entirely real as so much of it is being controlled by TV executives.

Truman believes that he lives a totally normal life, but it is only when he’s 30 years old that he realises his life isn’t quite what he thought it was. Christof, the TV producer says “While the world [Truman] inhabits is, in some respects, counterfeit, there is nothing fake about Truman himself.” It raises the idea that we may not be able to have any knowledge about our own lives.

How do we know that we are not living in a similar scenario where are lives are being controlled by someone and we are not in control of our lives?

Scepticism was a big issue for Descartes. He came up with an evil demon in his waves of doubt. He said there could be an evil demon that is an omnipotent being whose purpose is to deceive us in all we do. If this creature exists, how can we be certain that our beliefs 91

about the world aren’t being controlled by this evil demon, in the same way that Truman’s life is being controlled by Christof. This is a question that we can never really find a good answer to, although many philosophers have tried.

At one point in the film, Christof says “We accept the reality with which we are presented”. This seems to be very similar to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in which a few people are tied up and only ever see shadows of what’s going on in the real world behind them. They believe these shadows are all there is to reality until one of them is freed and discovers the real world. But even then, he still can’t convince the others that there is more to reality than these shadows. Plato’s allegory here is very closely linked to The Truman Show as Truman believes that the simulated world in which he lives in is in fact reality. Is The Truman Show supporting Plato’s view about the Realm of the Forms?

Another philosophical topic that can be taken from The Truman Show is whether the idea of this TV show is morally right or wrong. Is it morally wrong to trick one 92

person on such an enormous scale into believing their whole life is real when in fact it has all been orchestrated by a TV company? Truman believed he made friends and that his parents truly loved him but they were just paid actors who, whilst they may have become attached to him over the course of the time they spent together, probably would not have loved him or cared about him in the same way one’s real parents or friends would. It thus seems morally wrong to deceive somebody on such a great scale. The TV producers are using Truman as a means to their own ends as through Truman, they are making a lot of money through things such as merchandise and product placement. Kant’s second formulation of the hypothetical imperative says using someone as a means to your ends is immoral and that we should treat people as ends in themselves and so Kant would certainly agree that what is being done to Truman is immoral.

And so, overall, there are many big philosophical issues and ideas that are questioned in The Truman Show and it is down to the viewer as to how it should all be 93

interpreted. Christof claims that he knows Truman better than Truman knows himself. Is there someone controlling your life that knows you better than you do?

And is this morally right?

94

Does religion have a positive impact on society?

By Eli Tapnack U6R1 In the following essay I will be assessing whether religion has a positive impact on modern society within the Abrahamic faiths, and will be led to conclude that yes, it indeed does.

Religion: the most valuable myth to ever to grace humanity.

Jeremy Bentham kick-started the modern way of thinking about what it means for an action to be good or bad. For Bentham, and many others who came after him, what matters to us as mankind is seeking happiness, as “we are governed by two sovereign masters; pain and pleasure�.

2

This is the utilitarian

ideal. For followers of the principle of utility, the belief that pain and pleasure are the only two ends available to man is known, and therefore all actions we take have the end to either maximise pleasure or minimise pain.

2

The Principle of Utility, Jeremy Bentham, Ch1

95

Although Bentham’s ideal of act utility is mostly disregarded in the philosophy of today, his over-arching principle of aiming towards “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” 3 can almost certainly be said to define many of our day-to-day actions, whether it be conscious or not. J.S Mill, Bentham’s disciple, expertly proved the principle of utility, that happiness is the only good, by arguing in the following manner: The only way we can prove something to be desirable is if we desire it. Similarly, no reason can be given why happiness is desirable, other than the fact that we each desire our own; this is the most we can say factually in terms of happiness. Given what we have now established, Mill proves that happiness is a good to each person and therefore a good to the aggregate of all persons. He then takes his argument a step further by proving any desire we seek (truth, beauty, peace etc.) inevitably arrives at happiness. Some desires lead to happiness (e.g. you desire beauty to then be happy with 3

Extracts from Bentham's Commonplace Book, Jeremy Bentham, in Collected Works, x, p. 142;

96

your looks) and other desires consist in being happy (e.g. knowing the truth for its own sake is part of their happiness). Therefore, we always desire happiness, as it is the only good, so it necessarily follows that one should only act to try and maximise it.

If Bentham’s theory was along the right lines, (which we may safely it is assume he is, at least according to Mill’s proof) for religion to have a positive impact on society (society being made up of people seeking happiness) it must produce general happiness as its telos.

Taking into account both Bentham and Mill’s teachings, I would reason that for happiness to be apparent in our world, peace is a predicate of the utmost necessity, and thus I will base my argument on the Abrahamic religions’ impact on society based on their ability to yield peace.

Many would argue that wealth is just as essential, if not more, but evidence turns its back on such a hypothesis.

Take Syria, for example, the only significant oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean 97

region, and the host to potential for large economic prosperity. Conversely, due to its political instability giving rise to civil war and lack of peace, it ranks 4th from bottom on the World Happiness Index (WHI). On the other hand, a country such as Burkina Faso, with one of the world’s lowest GDPs per capita at just $600 (far lower than even Syria’s GDP PC of $2058 (and that’s during war time)), ranks 30 places higher than Syria on the WHI. The trend is obvious throughout the WHI, with the most war-torn countries near the bottom (Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen etc.) and the Scandinavian countries that stay furthest away from conflict making up the entire top four, despite not having the highest GDPs by any means. There should be no debate on whether wealth matches peace on the level of importance in order to obtain happiness; the evidence is clear and concrete.

It is fairly indisputable that the majority of the world desires peace. The facts are etched into human culture, with formations of peacekeeping groups such as the United Nations being at the forefront of world politics.

98

The world, as a whole, longs for and is in dire need of peace; now more than ever - premise one.

What man is in need of he “makes his God”,4 the celebrated idea of 19th century atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. The idea is one that many atheists of today have run away with as an answer to why the theists invented themselves a supernatural being in the first

place.

Feuerbach’s

answer

is

simple

and

compelling: the unattainable human desire towards perfection, evidence of which is rooted back to the earliest of philosophers, with much of Plato’s most accomplished work growing out of a desire for perfection that he could not find amongst our world, hence his invention of the Realm of the Forms. So, for centuries, man has looked to employ Godly powers to create supernatural alternatives to imperfection, yet the lack of any empirical evidence should cause the rational thinker to discard any such claim of a supernatural being, universe, or whatever else it may be, just as most 4

Lectures on the essence of Religion, Ludwig Feuerbach, 21 st Lecture

99

modern thinkers have discarded Plato’s Realm. Based on what we have already established, the fact that man desires peace will therefore mean he will make his God one of peace. This is evidenced through our three relevant Holy Scriptures, which display an overarching image of a “God of peace.” (Romans 15:33) So, we build our God as one of peace - our second premise.

For the faithful 84%5 of the world, God provides the inspiration on how to live. God is the mirror that believers gaze upon, the ‘perfect being’ that all should strive to replicate. After all, “God created mankind in his own image” (Gen 1:27). So, whether you believe that our desire for peace is a result of divine inheritance, or simply from trying to embody our designer-God’s characteristics, for the faithful (which accounts for the overwhelming majority) it surely arises from God and religion. Man is in need of peace, but does not know

5

https://www.agethesage.org/mysticism/world_religions_populat ions.html

100

how to achieve it. By projecting it unto our idea of a God, we are then able to parrot these attributes within ourselves; if God exemplifies them, we must therefore manifest them in ourselves too. Religion compels us to duplicate God’s peace that we built for him: our final premise.

So, it may now be said that religion is a fabulous fiction that encourages the emergence of world peace through a Godly figure unto which we project our desires for peace, which we then attempt to emulate. Our conclusion must indeed then be that religion brings about peace, which stands as a predicate for happiness.

The fact that religion plays a sizeable role in producing happiness leaves it self-evident that it is a positive force on modern society.

To further illustrate our example, we can use the teachings of 16th century political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argued that mankind is by nature too selfish to establish any sort of benevolent community without an omnipotent sovereign residing over us from

101

the top. 6 A sovereign of authority such that his word be law, and power such that rebuff be a crime. Such a sovereign is a role played by God throughout religion.

God instructs all his subjects to laws as “The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King” (Isiah 33:22) and threatens “punishment of those who reject faith” (Surah Al-Buqara, 90) in order to keep his followers in a functional society. Just as Hobbes argued that a King was needed to reside over the people in his country to prevent civil war and communal breakdown, each God rules over the people in “his” religion to keep them in check. Once again, this is not to say God exists (as Hobbes so firmly believed), but rather that he is the primary tool in ensuring human cohesion and maximising peace. Following the same line of argument as previously stated, we might once again conclude that due to providing opportunity for peace, religion has a positive impact on modern society.

6

Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Of Commonwealth

102

Religion also plays the role of being the hope of the lowly and the humbler of the proud. For those dealt with life’s poorer cards, struggling to feed, clothe and wash themselves and their families, religion provides hope. Hope that someday, the loving God will reward them for their suffering - if not in this world, then in the next. God is the shining light at the end of the tunnel, allowing those stuck in its crevices to keep faith. With no hope there would be no reason to continue living, and so by providing it to people stuck at the unfortunate end of life, religion is a force for good in the world, having a positive impact on modern society.

Religion is of equal benefit to those on the divergent side of life’s unforgiving scale - the fortunate and the prosperous, albeit in a slightly more subtle manner. In such cases, the role of religion is in keeping men of opulence grounded insofar as they understand a power above them allowed for all this to be possible, and created all human life equally. The impact this has on society as a whole is in creating a more relatable and kind community, with the likelihood of the rich acting 103

with contempt towards the poor being reduced due to the humbling nature of religion. Great examples can be found within Judaism. The custom of eating unleavened bread on Passover is taught to teach the Jews modesty, and metaphorically teaches to avoid arrogance and boastful behaviour (represented by leavened bread), and to stay low from time to time. Furthermore, an established interpretation of the Jewish custom of wearing a skullcap is that its purpose lies in metaphorically lowering one’s head, in recognition of a higher power above, in order to not allow one’s ego to supersede the size of his place on earth (that place being equal to all others).

The screams of opposition ring loudly, cursing my argument for failing to account for actions wherein religion brings about violence. What about ISIS, the crusades and tragic events and powers such as these?

Even the holocaust would not have occurred were it not for religion! How can religion be justified as having a positive impact of society whilst horrific acts and mass genocides have been carried out on its behalf?

104

The question is valid, and surely would be of great concern to many who have read my essay thus far. In response, we can firstly discard the Crusades and any other religious acts of violence in the distant past as we are arguing for religious impact on modern society. The cultural norms of mankind in biblical and ancient times are so far from what we experience today that they cannot be used in evidence for modern religious impact.

Secondly, in modern examples, we must look more closely at the wording of the argument regarding religious association with violence. It is not that religion causes violence, but rather excuses it. Those who turn to manipulating religion in order to satisfy their evil inner-cravings are not religious representatives, and the rational religious man would class them as anything but faithful. Agnotology can explain how culturally-induced ignorance leading to violent acts is the fault of no religion, but of man himself. The desire for evil has always been present and would always have been brought into fruition; it is just often the case that religion is used as the excuse. If religion didn’t exist, the 105

excuse would be found elsewhere (in race, creed or culture). Arguing that no religion would have meant no holocaust is a very crude approach to the subject; rather, it simply would have been a different holocaust.

Hitler’s campaign strategy was always going to be based around the scapegoating of a particular group or community. This was his way of making the “true Germans” feel better about themselves, thus gaining their vote as they associated their newfound self-value with Hitler’s rule. Had religion not existed, and Hitler not singled out the Jews, it simply would have been the blacks, or the gays, or the disabled and so on. Violence is never intrinsically religious; it just occasionally relies on religion as its extrinsic excuse.

Given all that has already been established, the fact that those of extreme ‘religious’ beliefs account for such a minority of religious believers deems it feasible that religion in its entirety has a positive impact on modern society. As with all rules, there will be exceptions, and there will be cases spread far and wide where religion may provide a somewhat negative impact on a local 106

scale, but is the exception that makes the rule. The religious myth of today is a positive one.

107

The Chief Rabbi in The Times: is religion and politics and unholy alliance?

By Sam Wolfson L6H1 On 26 November 2019, the Chief Rabbi of England wrote an unprecedented opinion piece in The Times newspaper about the lack of action taken in the Labour Party to combat antisemitism. He encouraged people to consider their vote very carefully in the upcoming election. It became a controversial piece of opinionated journalism - not due to its contents, but due to its author.

It is often said that religion and politics are different fields - and they are in many respects. It may come as a surprise therefore that time and again we see religious leaders involving themselves in matters of state rather than of church, or in this case, synagogue.

Many people would make a well-reasoned case for religious leaders to steer clear of political discourse. For one, religious leaders offer a sense of neutrality allowing 108

them to minister to everyone and provide communities with a focal point during trying times. If they are seen to have party affiliation, it could greatly hamper this duty. Another reason for the distancing of religious leaders from politics is that their communities may contain a large range of political opinions and in order for them to appeal to their broad church, these opinions may be better kept to themselves. The last reason that religious leaders should not involve themselves in politics is that the majority of political questions don’t necessarily have a religious angle, e.g. should National Insurance rates be 10% or 13%?

On the other hand, however, some political debates do contain religious material. These can range from the legalisation of same sex marriage and abortion to whether we should have a welfare state at all. This is because all major religions place a large emphasis on caring for the underprivileged, looking after the elderly and supporting the needs of the less fortunate. Whether a religious leader should become involved in the details 109

of such debates admits no easy answer. It differs from community to community and religion to religion.

However, what I am concerned with mainly are circumstances in which there could be a religious responsibility to intervene in politics. A modern example of this is the Dalai Lama speaking out about the treatment of many Buddhists in China and Tibet. It would render the office of the Dalai Lama almost meaningless had he not spoken out.

Being an orthodox Jew, I have often been taught that neutrality is not a valid or appropriate religious response to hate and falsehood. As the Rabbis taught, “silence is like an admission� and therefore remaining indifferent in such a moment is tantamount to consenting to these actions and rhetoric.

This is not just a religious view, however. John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher and political economist, famously stated in 1867 that “Bad men need nothing 110

more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”. As often cited in layman’s terms, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

As we have seen, speaking out in order to spread awareness for, or to stop an atrocity being perpetrated against a community, is not just a good idea; speaking out for such reasons can be both a religious obligation and a political imperative.

The Maharal of Prague, a famous Rabbi who lived during the 15th century, was renowned for championing the religious freedoms and protection of his community in the face of external dangers. He recognised that “while a person may be individually pious, such good will pale in the face of the sin of not protesting against an emerging communal evil”. He understood that it is the task of those leading the community to protest and beware of such threats.

111

Even considering the point that religious leaders may not want to involve themselves in political discourse so as not to upset congregants, religious leaders cannot be afraid to call a spade a spade in such climates where dangers face their community. Rabbi Salanter had this in mind when he said that “a rabbi whom they don’t want to drive out of town is no rabbi”. In other words, the act of leadership means almost necessarily that you cannot please everyone.

We have seen that there are times both when religious leaders should not speak out and times when they must.

Religious leaders, although meaning to do well, should only involve themselves in matters that affect their own community. This is because it is easier to justify their response when they are dealing with matters affecting their own community. However, a religious leader who concerns himself only with matters affecting his own religious community may appear parochial. Religious leaders must be able to tread the fine line between speaking

out

when

necessary 112

but

restraining

themselves, so that when they do speak, their words have special impact and a distinctively moral force.

113

INTERVIEW WITH REV BRANDON

Jack Davis U6R2 in conversation with Rev Brandon

JD: Rev, I’m very grateful for your time today. The editorial team were keen to interview you to keep the student body informed with the latest developments in your thought, whilst also providing the younger years with an insight into who you truly are.

JD: If you could teach in any other department at Habs, which would it be and why?

RB: History, because I find that I naturally look back not forward

114

JD: Favourite Book?

RB: Marie Louise von Franz – Archetypal patterns in fairy tales JD: Favourite Bible figure?

RB: Saul – his psychology was so complicated that it illustrates what actually goes on deep in the psyche JD: Favourite animal in the Bible RB: The Serpent in the Garden of Eden JD: Are stories in the Bible concrete examples of how we should live our lives?

RB: A lot of the stories have to be read allegorically, and with all allegories the reader is free to infer their own place in the story and the meaning they invest in the story JD: So, did anything in the Bible literally take place?

RB: I’m sure it did JD: So how can we know what did and didn’t happen

115

RB: It’s a good question JD: As I am sure you are aware, the theme of our journal is politics and religion, and the interaction between them and how closely intertwined they have become. In the current climate, do you think they should be as closely connected as they are?

RB: No, I think the future will lead to a closer connection. Religion will become a large part of people’s identity again. That perspective will be explored a lot deeper as many have not yet considered this. One’s religion should not define their political agenda, but as soon as a political agenda affects other people’s religions, we start to see problems emerge.

JD: A fascinating point, thank you.

JD: Finally, what would you say has been your highlight of the year so far?

RB: There are many answers I could give you here Jack, but I am going to tell you about something I have loved seeing at the School, which has really grown in the last

116

year. Some of the conversations that happen in class, that appear to be very off topic really intrigue me. They may seem to be tangents, but are very useful, as they are meta conversations. They aren’t on the syllabus, yet they are exactly what a school such as ours should be encouraging.

117

EDITORIAL TEAM

Ronit Anand Jeevan Bhullar Jack Davis Max Davis Jasper Federman Eli Tapnack Jed Wagman

118