Learning from my sectarianism?
Two recent events in the city I’m from have made me think of comparisons between the sectarianism and bigotry I grew up with and today’s versions.
- The first was a senior Islamic imam praising a murderer of a politician who stood against strict blasphemy laws in Pakistan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123.
- The second was the murder of a muslim apparently by another who disagreed with his friendship towards Christians - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35898543.
I grew up in the sectarian bigoted divide of Glasgow. This was due to my family background and was made worse by the Roman Catholic faith based schools in Glasgow that resulted in the supposedly non-denominational schools I attended essentially being of the other (protestant) tribe. This was at a time when the sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland significantly affected our city due to the two-way migration between the two over many decades.
What did these experiences teach me about today’s versions of religious bigotries?
Protection by privilege
The loyalist side of the divide that I grew up in held the view that the way to prevent abuse by the republican side was to give themselves privilege or maintain those that already existed such as the Churches of England and Scotland being the established religious faiths of those countries. Today we hear politicians and others argue that we need to protect the “Christian nature” of the UK. This is essentially arguing for preservation of a way of life that supposedly existed decades ago despite the world naturally moving on. They fail to see, as my loyalist community also did, that the best approach to protect themselves (and everyone else) is a secular one. Secular does not mean atheist or anti-religion, it actually means a system of government, laws, schooling etc that treats everyone equally irrespective of their beliefs or lack of them.
Free speech including blasphemy laws
Both sides of my sectarian Glasgow divide united in favouring restrictions on free speech such as blasphemy laws. They liked the approach that limited discussion and debate of beliefs because in a weird way they were comfortable to perpetuate the sectarian divide that gave them purpose in life. Instead they should have seen that free speech (in a total sense that only restricts speech that incites violence) was the best protection of their views as others such as islamists would be coming along happily using restrictions on free speech to allow their sectarian world views space to grow.
I should be clear that by Islamism is meant the use of Islam in a political system that imposes its views on everyone irrespective of their own beliefs. Jihadism such as ISIS is the version of this that uses violence to achieve its aims.
Integration including Faith based schools
In a related way, sectarian groups are happy to avoid integration of different groups because it prevents or reduces the developments that come from a sharing of ideas and approaches between belief groups. In Glasgow, the Roman Catholic church argues that their faith based schools are needed to give their believers the choice to have their kids brought up in the faith both at school as well as at home. The lack of integration this engenders is obvious to anyone who looks.
Most people don’t look however because they experience the “faith based school lite” versions that are mainly divisive in terms of limiting equal opportunities (through selection of children from relatively wealthier families). These largely middle class, pleasant schools are however one side of the same coin that has tribal, divisive schools that allow islamist doctrine to be taught to impressionable kids.
A secular approach to education in my days in Glasgow would have helped reduce division and the same can be said of today’s versions that now include other faith groups.
Identity politics
As I grew up, it was common to hear all protestants being treated as loyalist bigots and all roman catholics as republican terrorists by the other tribe. Today’s versions of these generally involve right wingers treating all muslims as one group (and a dangerous terrorist one at that) or regressive left wingers treating everyone who criticises islam as racists (sic) or islamophobes.
On the subject of islamophobia, we seem to have started using a term which is, at best, misnamed and, at worst, extremely dangerous. Islam is a belief system (or number of them) and it’s not possible to have a phobia on a belief system. Rather you disagree with it and that is acceptable. It is possible, and too common, for people to be bigoted against muslims (ie the actual people rather than their beliefs). Surely this is anti-muslim bigotry or muslimphobia not islamphobia? The latter construct serves to stop any valid debate about beliefs as the far left shout islamophobe whenever anyone questions certain teachings of islam.
The repetition of the christain bigotries of my upbringing in today’s broader beliefs environment relates to islam. We hear some say that jihadists have nothing to do with islam and the opposing extreme view that islam is essentially an extreme religion. The latter version of identity politics allows bigots to argue that all muslims are a terrorist threat in the same way loyalist bigots used to argue all catholics or Irish were.
The truth for me is that jihadists use Islamic teachings to suit their political, economic and social ends. In other words they choose the elements that suit them. To move from this to the view that islam is necessarily extreme is a leap too far.
Similarly, however, to say that jihadists have nothing to do with “true” islam is also wrong in my opinion. All religious books can be interpreted in various ways. Just because some choose a peaceful interpretation of the Koran doesn’t mean Jihadists haven’t also based their approach on it. Equally certain Christian faiths (evangelical and roman catholic) interpret the Bible in a way that abuses women’s’ rights to birth control and prevent control of the aids decease. Many therefore die unnecessarily in certain parts of the world.
Religion sits alongside political, economic and social factors
The sectarian divide I grew up in was sometimes seen simplistically as one based on faith differences. The truth of course was that the disputes were actually using religion as part of a fight over political, economic and social objectives. The protestant loyalists wanted to protect their advantages whilst the catholic republicans wanted a fairer crack of the political, economic and social whips.
Similarly today we need to try to understand extremist views by reference to these factors as well. Both the islamists/jihadists as well as the far right are driven by religious beliefs that support their political, economic and social ends.
So what do I know?
Nothing changes but everything changes. It’s a different world today because of the rise of Islamism/jihadism (and the international nature of this) but it has similarities with my sectarian upbringing. To make progress I would argue we should
- Embrace secularism as it doesn’t mean atheism and it doesn’t attack religions and faiths. Conversely it protects all of us by ensuring no one religion or faith has advantages over the rest of us.
- Protect free speech (excluding only that which incites violence) as it will allow beliefs to develop over time as they should and prevent beliefs from an age that is no longer relevant being treated as untouchable.
- Avoid moving from a perfectly valid viewpoint to an extreme one of identity politics. For example, it is valid to argue that some Islamic faiths have problems that should be addressed (such as misogyny and attacks on apostates and free speech) but if you then say all muslims are dangerous you’ve overstepped the mark. Similarly, it is acceptable to argue there is a problem with bigotry against muslims but to then shout “islamphobia” whenever anyone raises issues with islam is creating not solving problems.
What do you think?
