Religion: What is it Good for?

Written by Elizabeth Welsh

Religion: What is it Good for?

Remarkably, as Chair Sean Plunket stated, it took the three panellists of Religion: What is it Good for? forty minutes before journalists were blamed for the creation of media silence and the reluctance to discuss religion, a typical Plunket observation which met with uproars of laughter and delight, nowhere more so than in the press rows where I was seated. I relish direct confrontation and so I was thrilled when this issue finally came up in discussion. The three panellists, Adrian Wooldridge, columnist for The Economist and co-author of God is Back, Michael Otterman, journalist, human rights consultant and author of American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (2007) and Erasing Iraq: The Human Costs of Carnage (2010), and Antony Loewenstein, freelance journalist, blogger and author of My Israel Question (2006) were relaxed and showed little of the dissent that characterised Friday night’s debate What good are the Arts? This was surprising given the subject under discussion, religion. That said, Adrian Wooldridge notably seemed to dominant the discussion, as the far more vocal speaker of the three.

Beginning with admissions of religious standing or otherwise, two of the panellists, Michael Otterman and Antony Loewenstein professed to be Atheist Jews. Michael added humorously that “what that means in New York is that you watch Seinfeld and eat bagels on Sunday”. In a rather more sombre tone Antony stated that he was “profoundly ashamed of what Jews around the world are doing in my name”. Adrian Wooldridge claimed to be atheist, but to “support religion like a buttress from the outside”.

At this stage in the event Wooldridge took over, answering the question of what ‘good’ religion can bring. He identified three researched strands, beginning with the creation of unique “bonds of community”. These “bonds” are instrumental in assisting people to prosper, not the least financially. The second strand related to the set of social services that religion can and does provide to a society. In this instance Wooldridge pulled forth the example of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the religious groups that remained once the benevolence of most charities waned in the year or two years following. The final strand that Wooldridge argued was, in my opinion the most tenuous, that religion persuades individuals to do otherwise irrational (and often dangerous) things. Wooldridge cited the story of a priest so strong in his faith that he walked into a drug den and threw out the dealers, helping them to change their lives. At this point I was more than wavering. I was precariously tilted away from Wooldridge. As Otterman pointed out, albeit in a very calm collected manner, this can instigate action that propels the positive or ‘good’ aspects of humanity, and equally it can propel ‘barbaric’ aspects of humanity.

As a perfect example of the proceeding argument, Loewenstein interceded to discuss the conflation of Judaism and Zionism. He repeated his opening concern, “What is Judaism doing in my name?” and queried the moral blind spot that has provided cover for decades of Israeli action. Wooldridge pulled himself back into the spotlight to propose that this willingness of religions to make an exception for actions of members of their affiliated groups/communities is a matter of identity politics. He then moved sideways on what was, I believe, a personal tangent and claimed that academic studies have shown that religious groups are more enduring than secular groups. I felt uneasy at this point in the argument, aware that religious groups have dominated Western society for millennia, and so questioned whether the comparative research was conducted on a level playing field? Wooldridge continued to conclude that due to the necessary cut-backs in public sectors, voluntary (read religious) sectors will be required to take over the vital role in supporting and creating a flourishing civic society. And cue the chronic uncertainty welling up inside me.

An interesting discussion instigated by Sean Plunket revolved around the question of whether there is a way to redirect fundamentalism in a positive way. All three of the panellists were unanimous in stating that the separation of state and religion is the most constructive way to begin, all three identifying the effect of the Founding Fathers’ separation of the two. Although this separation is constantly under threat, it has thus far endured successfully. Pluralism, Wooldridge adamantly stated, does not mean the death of religion. Rather, it provides freedom of choice.

Loewenstein surfaced the debate on France’s position as poised and ready to impose legislation that would fine women wearing burkas. Belgium legislators have similarly already recently passed legislation that bans the wearing of the burka in public. This appears to deny principles of religious freedom, does it not? he queried. This was an issue I had anticipated as surfacing, and given the expertise of the panellists I sat poised eager to hear their opinions. Loewenstein caused the audience around me to tremble when he confronted them with the question: “Are we comfortable, as Western liberal states/countries, saying that women do not have the right to wear X piece of clothing?” Despite our own natural reactions to whether or not these should be worn, Loewenstein stated, who are we to deny freedom of religious expression? Wooldridge swooped in yet again and brought the discussion around to the example of Bush entering Iraq without taking religion seriously as part of foreign policy. Wooldridge proposed that religion can be part of the problem, but can equally be part of the solution. A rare comment from Otterman saw him agreeing with Wooldridge, that the US ignored the religious divisions within the Iraq community, and went on to discuss the equalizing effects that elections can have on religious fundamentalism.

This led the debate to the consideration of the need for the media to seriously discuss the interests pushed in the Iraq war. Wooldridge jumped in with the claim that the media only ever discusses religion in one of two ways, as scandal or as caricature. I found myself considering this claim at this point and seriously questioning how journalists and authors (the three panellists included) approach and deal with religion in the mainstream media. Does this, as Wooldridge claim, show an ignorance of vibrant religions? Do we actively engage in religious discussion?

The subject of Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to be a full member of the Cabinet in the United Kingdom, entered the conversation and all three panellists discussed this ‘first’. Loewenstein at this point digressed and painted a rather grim picture of Australia’s parliamentary and media ‘make-up’, claiming the image of Australia is still predominantly ‘white’. The idea that Australia may have an indigenous figure in parliament is a pipe dream according to Loewenstein, who claimed that the diversity of Australia is not being represented adequately at all.

As the discussion continued and the panellists took questions from an incredibly eager audience I realized that critical texts concerning religion are key components in continuing this discussion of Religion: What is it Good for? Being a rather pedantic English student myself, I simply wanted to ask, define ‘good’? It seemed to me, that the answer is probably as diverse as the variance in religions, all equally straining towards this incredibly nebulous word.