Of dogs and multiculturalism
If the new Guardian poll is accurate, and has not been skewed by a slanted question or skewed respondents, "More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good." The Guardian/ICM poll supposedly "shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good."
After a year in which the adherents of one religion have repeatedly blown up innocent people, I have to sympathize with those who think religion causes "division and tension". That seems rather an understatement. However, since no particular religion was identified, but merely the vague penumbra "religion", neither I nor Guardian/ICM have any idea whether respondents found Christianity, Buddhism, and pantheism all disturbing the peace, or whether they had some more particular concerns, based on their daily digest of national and international news.
There is no doubt that Christianity, for example, has caused “tensions and divisions” in the past. It is also fact that much of what is best about Britain and the Brits is the result of Christianity. As we mentioned in a recent post, it is extremely doubtful that jury trials, representative government, and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech would ever have existed without the inspiration of Judeo-Christian principles , and very unlikely that the creative and cooperative efforts of Brits which have contributed to our wellbeing would ever have arisen.
This became brilliantly clear to us when we created timelines tracing the history of freedom, innovation and invention. We had been blind to the synergy before, partly because academia and the press preferred to teach unfair and uninformed accusations against Christianity and to feed us uneducated pieties about multiculturalism. It is only recently that modern thinkers have come to see multiculturalism as the real source of “division and tension”, but the Guardian, which has made multiculturalism its religion, fails to see this.
A humble example that is also a tribute to Brits brings a keen nose to this issue. For hundreds of years Brits have brought dogs into their homes, loved them, and depended on them. They established the RSPCA to protect them. Religious or not, Brits do not believe a dog is an impure animal (though he might need a bath), and they would no more abuse their dog than they would abuse their children. Yet there are people in the world who for reasons of religion believe dogs are impure and can be abused and who, driving taxis in London, have refused to pick up blind persons accompanied by seeing-eye dogs.
When Britain was Judeo-Christian, dogs happily traveled by taxi, and there were no “divisions or tensions”. In Baghdad or Mecca, dogs do not travel by taxi, and there are no “divisions or tensions” there either. “Divisions and tensions” may or may not exist in religious nations. They certainly exist in nations divided along multicultural lines.
The multiculturalists claim that the answer is “tolerance”. This may be the answer some of the time, but “tolerance” is not always the healer of “divisions and tensions". As many in the world have learned to their regret, and a wiser person than I advised, tolerance can produce the intolerable.