Believe it or not: David Miliband is an atheist
Clutching at straws, AC Grayling finds a lone reason recommending David Miliband as Prime Minister: he’s an atheist.
Grayling then proceeds to draw up a list of wishful thinking; a list of all the amazing things a non-believing prime minister will do. All very nice:
Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation.
Wouldn’t that be lovely? Has Miliband gone on the public record anywhere giving even the merest hint that he might think along these lines? He was head of Tony Blair’s Policy Unity from 1997 to 2001, for crying our loud. He backed the Iraq war despite his belief that everyone fighting might squander their one existence without hope of the reward of an after-life.
The thing is, I have doubts whether religious (non) beliefs of any stripe colour the judgement of leaders to any large extent. For all his self-proclaimed Christian beneficence, Tony Blair displays very, very few of the qualities that mark someone as a Christian. Ditto ’son of the manse’ Gordon Brown. See also George Bush.
But here we go again, imprinting another potential Prime Minister with our tenuous hopes. Haven’t we learned our lesson in the last year? Miliband, like Gordon Brown, is a leading figure and architect of New Labour. He is the status quo; another bag carrier for the post-Thatcherite consensus.
He bought into all that when he was a kid. He’s been soaked in power-without-purpose politics for decades. Does he look like a boat-rocker to you? An ‘agent’ of ‘change’? The idea that, as he crosses the threshold of Number 10 as Prime Minister, his atheism gland will kick in and rewrite his New Labour DNA is, frankly, ludicrous.
Posted on August 21st, 2008 at 10:35am under New Labour, Religion and theology
| Related posts... • Three wheels on my wagon • The Curmudgeon: Who Devour Widows’ Houses • A nutter, yes, but for a different reason |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 7 Comments |
But of course Megaband has a faith! – to make sure that this nation, this sceptred isle, maintains a posture that maximises the kissing of Yankee a$$! What higher calling could there be for any would-be vassal?
The thing is, I have doubts whether religious (non) beliefs of any stripe colour the judgement of leaders to any large extent.
I think they probably do; the trouble is that the outcomes are frequently indistinguishable. A leader who ignores the plight of poor people because s/he thinks they’ll have riches in heaven has pretty much the same effect as a leader who ignores the plight of poor people because s/he doesn’t give a toss, whatever the difference in principle.
Philip’s latest blog post… Two Literary Notices
Read my piece again and read it properly: I did not say that Miliband would make a good PM, still less that he should become PM, because he is an atheist; I said that there would be some advantages in having a PM who is an atheist, a point worth making because some think that Miliband is destined to replace Brown at some near future point, and is open about his atheism. Given Miliband’s views on civil liberties and his association with many Blair policies I would rather some other atheist were PM. I repeat, so that you get it: Miliband was not the central point of the piece: the piece was about the advantages of an atheist PM.
Professor Grayling, I’ve just read your piece, and I’m afraid I err towards Justin on this, if only because the succession of paragraphs beginning ‘atheist leaders’ has no relationship to either the stated beliefs of Miliband (or of any other current party leader) or of the policy positions of either of the major parties. It’s too abstract from what the current government actually does, or might do in future (how likely is it that Miliband is going to undo all those religious city academies, having created them in the first place?). I agree: an atheist PM would be brilliant – if he or she actually led a political party that had policies arising from that in an election-winning manifesto – but a socialist might be just as good as well. Looking at New Labour, I’m not holding my breath for either eventuality, even if Miliband takes over.
[1] “Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now”
A statement of fact that I’d imagine is very hard to support.
[2] “will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation.”
Fine, in principle. But there is no reason why an atheist would actually be concerned about present sufferings and inequalities (in part because [1] is a pretty dodgy claim) regardless of the existence or otherwise of an afterlife.
And on this ground, I’d rather a socialist PM (perhaps a Christian one, like Tony Benn) than any number of atheist neo-liberals, speaking of cutting benefits and talking about ‘incentives’.
Religion might be one part of the ideological orientation of politicians, but it pales in insignificance compared to their views of the existing economic arrangements and the possibilities for a different society built, not on exhortation or moral statements, but real economic change towards equality.
I find all this foregrounding of religion to be serving as a distraction – it allows otherwise intelligent people to think that they are fighting some great fight, leaving the important things unchallenged. For Marx religion might have been the opium of the masses, distracting and soothing people in the face of a class society – well, it looks like arguing against religion is the cocaine of the man of letters; they can feel that they are engaged in an important intellectual struggle, and can feel incredibly macho while doing so, while ignoring the reality of the world built on economic inequality.
See also Dawkins and his frankly dim bash at dowsers and the like as ‘Threats to Reason’, when there is the existence of advertising and propaganda. It’s a bit like kicking the crumbly old ex-colonial racist in the shins, while ignoring the NF skinheads who have moved in next door. Or, even, the racism built into the structure of the economy, but there you go.
Defenders of reason, in choosing their targets so poorly, are more often than not an offence to reason in themselves.
Tony Blair and George Bush claim to be christians. But the meek haven’t inherited much of the earth on their watch, and there’s been precious little turning of cheeks.
We can safely assume, therefore, that whatever theoretical advantages we might imagine an atheist leader to possess, they will be greatly overshadowed by the general tendency of people in power to act like complete bastards almost all of the time.
Jim Bliss’s latest blog post… Invalid XHTML
Redpesto, I don’t think Grayling’s list of the virtues of atheist leaders is too wide of the mark when it comes to Nick Clegg. Perhaps not in every detail, but broadly accurate.
True he doesn’t go round
defending reasonattacking faith schools. But nor do I, and I will defend reason as much as any cocained-up man of letters.Joe Otten’s latest blog post… Still alive