Blog Task 02: Faith

by Ben Hirt

---

Religion, the public sphere and higher education

Professor Craig Calhoun, London School of Economics and Political Science

The ‘vaguely Christian’ UK

Reflecting upon The ‘vaguely Christian’ UK, the article addresses the absence of public expressions of personal faith in British public life. Calhoun states that the Roman Catholic Church (amongst other Anglican voices) still dominate, infiltrate and influence public discourse to a large extent. Political matters such as moral ethics surrounding capitalism, multiculturalism as well inequality are still playing an active role, propagated by these religious voices, hindering social progress. Unlike other countries, such as the U.S. where freedom of religion is celebrated in society, a ‘low-church’ culture has been historically established over centuries.

In the UK, a subliminal message of ‘British are Christian’ is constantly diluting and denying the multicultural changes and its realities. Although Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhist are prominent in British public life, world events over the past two decades have shifted the focus on Islam. This not only contributes to another distinction and differentiation, effectively singling out a religion and creating yet another separation.

More recent statistics have revealed that almost a quarter of UK citizens to not identify themselves with any religion. The article further states that citizens who neither support nor oppose religion (of any kind), fall under the category of ‘vicarious religion’.

As I was not familiar with the term/terminology: ‘Vicarious religion’, I ended up doing a bit more research. This brought me to an article on Vicarious And Default Religion by Professor Evert Van de Poll, who pointed out the Swiss example: As a public referendum resulted in a vote against the construction of minarets in 2009, the right wing political party SVP successfully convinced voters of a “cultural heritage” thread if facing a Muslim presence. As Christianity is seen as a normal part of the cultural landscape in Switzerland, citizens who neither support nor oppose the religion are subconsciously biased.

In conclusion, I have many more questions than answers. I was mainly wondering to what extend the public qualifying under “vicarious religion’ can be held accountable for not more actively playing a role and participating in the conversation? As it is a thin line between indifference, non-involvement and passively propagating a historical agenda, governments would potentially have to address their cultural heritage that are deeply ingrained in society. Taking Switzerland as an example, demographics have changed significantly over the past two decades. In 2019, almost 1 out of 4 citizens have a migration background. 80% (2.9 million) were born abroad and qualify as first generation migrants. 20% therefor fall under second generation. Of the 2.9 million, 38% have Swiss nationality and are eligible to vote. The most common foreign nationalities are Italian (10%), German (9%), Portuguese (7%) and French (4%), according to swissinfo.ch. As the right to vote does not apply to a majority of foreigners living in Switzerland, their views and voices are not being captured. Raising awareness in tolerance and change would therefor have to be implemented by the educational system. However ,it is this very same educational system that is reliant on law makers, political parties and their politicians.

---

Religion and dissent in universities

Having had a closer read on ‘Religion and dissent in universities’, the UK Government policy PREVENT stood out. It’s implication and legislation in 2015 expanding into educational policies, effectively creating a link between anticipated political violence, extremism and educational institutions. Schools are asked to more proactively participate and take a role in preventing the recruitment and radicalisation of pupils. By using a framework of ‘Guidance on promoting British values in schools’, provided by the British Government, institutions are asked to implement the following, exemplary points:

In order for schools and childcare providers to fulfil the Prevent duty, it is essential that staff are able to identify children who may be vulnerable to radicalisation, and know what to do when they are identified. Protecting children from the risk of radicalisation should be seen as part of schools’ and childcare providers’ wider safeguarding duties, and is similar in nature to protecting children from other harms (e.g. drugs, gangs, neglect, sexual exploitation), whether these come from within their family or are the product of outside influences.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf

As the legal text and section above states, radicalisation does not only apply in a religious context, but also in relations to drugs, gangs, human trafficking and sexual exploitation. What appears to be common sense at first glance, the article does raise the question of profiling. As educational institutions are neither educated nor equipped for policing, the PREVENT initiative is certainly pushing the boundaries in expanding and offsetting responsibilities.

It is my opinion that educational bodies (such as universities) do have e responsibility towards the student body. Hence, it is important to monitor students and their well being. As issues are often flagged up during personal tutorials regarding private matters, tutors and staff do need to take action on a case to case basis. Student issues are often multifaceted and complex to understand. Most tutors (including myself) are not psychologically trained and rely on mental health professionals to assist if need be. In many ways, a mental health assessment (therapy) would be a more accurate assessment of a student’s condition. Potential red flags and issues regarding the criminalisation or exploitation of a student could be evaluated more carefully during a screening. By focusing on the state of mental health and well being of a student, the human condition and circumstances is being actively evaluated. It is this careful evaluation that must not stand in relation or connection to any ethnic- or religious background and therefor avoiding any racial biases and profiling.

Schools and childcare providers can also build pupils’ resilience to radicalisation by promoting fundamental British values and enabling them to challenge extremist5 views. It is important to emphasise that the Prevent duty is not intended to stop pupils debating controversial issues. On the contrary, schools should provide a safe space in which children, young people and staff can understand the risks associated with terrorism and develop the knowledge and skills to be able to challenge extremist arguments.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf

The section and article above once again raises the question of format and context. As academic institutions rely on freedom of speech regarding debates around values, ideologies and culture (amongst other subject matters), academia inherently provides an open- and safe space for knowledge exchange. I don’t believe it is an educational institution’s obligation to promote any “fundamental cultural values” informed by the institutional body itself. A true and unbiased open space should remain neutral. Educational institution should provide an open space for any discussions and knowledge exchange to unfold, without imposing and interjecting its institutional views, effectively disrupting the very same space. Likewise, it is not an educational institution’s function or responsibility to propagate any political agendas or specify such content. “Young people and staff can understand the risks associated with terrorism and develop the knowledge and skills to be able to challenge extremist arguments” can certainly be ONE aspect of many to be considered when investigating, researching and debating a particular set of socio-economic and political challenges, but it should by now means sway a conversation into a single direction. It is important to acknowledge, that conversations (in- and outside of academia) are an ever so evolving process, that most often do not conclude in any definite state and therefor remain uncertain. Hence, any politically motivated messaging effectively introduces the contrary: A set of values that have been predetermined and do not offer an opportunity “to develop the knowledge and skills to challenge extremist arguments”.

_{5 “Extremism” is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas. Terrorist groups very often draw on extremist ideas developed by extremist organisations.}

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf

In my opinion, the annotation above raises some cause for concern. Not being from Britain myself, I do not necessarily understand, live or celebrate “fundamental British values”. As stated above, fundamental British values are mainly defined by law makers implementing the rule of law. However, it is those law makers that in a democratic system are also democratically elected. This raises the question of representation and equality: Are the current laws in Britain reflecting current, “British” values? If so, what are those values in its modern form? How has the demographic of Britain changed over the past decade? Who and what is Britain in 2023? Often, an old set of values is being imposed, applied and referred back to, without taking these questions into consideration.

Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:

• an understanding of how citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process

• an understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law

• an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour

• an understanding of the importance of identifying and combatting discrimination

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439598/prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf

The bullet points above are probably to closest set of norms and values that academic institutions generally aim for. In this case, there is no discrepancy between the UK Government’s overall mission and the educational sector.

In conclusion, my attention and research was brought back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by United Nations, signed in Paris on 10 December 1948; More specifically to the first two articles stating the following:

• All human beings are free and equal All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
• No discrimination Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.

Although not all-conclusive, the first two articles are aiming to not only establish a basic understanding of equality amongst all humans, but also define a framework for calibration within society.

---

Religion as a public good

Reading through the article and paragraph on “Religion as a public good’, a couple of sections (listed as quotes below) have come to my attention, provoking a few more thoughts:

The public sphere is not simply the government or a realm of public ownership. It is the mutual engagement of citizens – and often others – in debate and the formation of culture as well as voting and decision-making.

Religion in Britain – Challenges for Higher Education

Much to my point earlier on (participating in a democratic system by voting), the quote above does elude to the same phenomena. As the government is representing the pubic and vice versa, it is crucial to not differentiate and actively create a devision between the two. Although a governmental body is an organised entity managing public life, it can and should not be regarded as an independent instrument, but rather closely connected to the public. In an ideal scenario, the dissonance between government and the public is kept at a minimum or at best does not exist. Hence, the public ownership should at all times be informed by citizens actively engaging. This remains true to all political topics as well as religion. It is the people’s and government’s responsibility to equally engage with any religion truly. Not for the sake of simply engaging, but for the purpose of public education. By providing equal access and visibility, an open discourse can be held. Trying to divide and separate the conversation not only feeds into secularism, but also deprives the public of a chance to familiarise themselves with the unfamiliar.

While public policy is organised to pursue the public good, the public sphere includes discussions that help define what should count as the public good.

While public policy is organised to pursue the public good, the public sphere includes discussions that help define what should count as the public good.

In a perfect world, public policy and public sphere would be running in sync, and therefor be up to date at all times. However, as the democratic process cannot foresee and implement laws democratically accommodating the public sphere, the process remains reactive and not proactive. The public sphere (the citizens) have to come to an agreement first as to what and how should be regulated (if at all). This process is time costly and simply cannot catch up fast enough with the public sphere that in the meantime has transformed once again. At best, public policy sets a flexible framework allowing for swift change and adaptation if need be. In case of disagreement and potential conflict, it remains true that public policy regulates and represents a majority. Discussions that should not count as public good run the risk of being unprotected in case of conflict. It is then back to citizens (and societies) to find solutions not involving public policy but communication, stated in the following quote:

Shared public communication and open interaction are better.

Shared public communication and open interaction are better.

Following this logic and concept, I am not sure if the following quote and section is beneficial in approach:

The point is that members of minorities may need some level of in-group solidarity and recognition as a basis for extending themselves into wider relations.

The point is that members of minorities may need some level of in-group solidarity and recognition as a basis for extending themselves into wider relations.

By actively fostering “some level of in-group solidarity”, I could’t help it wonder, if this defeats the purpose all together. As the article states on various occasions, inclusiveness supersedes exclusiveness. The public sphere is asked to be inclusive and not exclusive. Hence, creating any sort of isolated sub-groups introduces a concept of exclusiveness once again. If the public should be able to have access to “the public sphere” at all times, no-one should be either singled or left out.

---

Alia Yousseff | 50 // Higher Power: Religion, Faith, Spirituality & Belief

Aalya, Saba and Salimah all draw attention to the concept of complex identities. Their unique “systems of believe” not only inform their active decision making on a daily basis, but lay the groundwork for inclusivity when interacting with others. Each representing a unique viewpoint on the world, they reveal a customised approach in assisting progress. All of them demonstrate and contribute in various ways to the notion of sustainability, in one form or another.

Aalya brings attention to the concept (and reality) of being parts of a minority, within a minority within a minority. Identifying herself with the Islamic ethos, Aalya studies Islamic societies and civilisations in her Master program. Aalya is interested in people who exist on the periphery of society and its norms. By celebrating inclusivity, Aalya loves to be an ally for others. Coming from a farming background, she creatively managed to also merge her background with her academic, artistic training.

Saba’s interests are vastly spanning across the sectors of data and technology, health, food, fitness and wellness. Working as a Data Coordinator at an Urban Farm aligns with her moral- and ethical values regarding sustainability. All of her knowledge and skillsets can be individually or jointly activated, dependent on the task at hand. Her various interests and skills have created a save-haven for herself. She calls it her “sanctuary”. She emphasis the importance of learning, being informed and “knowing your options”. This informs her decision making into the future. She’s also aware of her heritage, cultural- and religious background. Saba is trying to educate as many people as possible on the stereotype of muslim women not being independent.

Salimah manages to successfully extends her business practice as a Yoga trainer into the outside world. She loves the interaction with people when exploring a new space. She’s following her intuition combined with a positive outlook on active engagement with others. This positivity transcends and bridges gabs. It connects! This approach is highly educational for both parties, her self as well as the people she engages with. It is a customised approach that pays attention (and respect) to the individual. It emphasises and celebrates these momentary human connection we all need.

When I asked Salimah how she thinkgs she’s perceived she responded: “Lesbian, Yogi, Brown, Muslim aka Human” but she would prefer to just be perceived as human.

https://shadesofnoir.org.uk/journals/higher-power-religion-faith-spirituality-belief/

Education at its best finds and supports individual human beings, accompanying them along a highly customised journey suiting their specific needs. Those needs, usually reflected in a student’s interests, are unique to every human being, informed by their values and systems of belief. Art- and Design Programs and their education around the world, large or small, provide a structured and organised framework for humans of all ages to (re)discover their creativity within. This is often in reference to the “personal voice”, which plays an integral part in arts education.

When working with young adults and students, finding this “personal voice” of theirs is often a complicated and inconclusive process. Not focusing an the achievement but rather on the discovery of personal voice shifts the focus automatically to more personal and complex systems of belief. Students in now days world and society often struggle to orient themselves. As the world has become more globalised and layers of complexities have been added due to social media, students often struggle to find their personal voice and identity. A vast media landscape and various offerings can be distracting and disorienting at the same time. It therefor remains crucial for students (humans) to keep searching for their personal voice and identity, as this remains an everchangning process throughout our lives. Discovering and nurturing this personal voice has often led to a variety of entrepreneurial endeavours outside the world of visual arts, finding its way into the non-profit- and commercial world. However, it is this personal voice that hopefully transcends in values, informing interactions with other human beings, both in personal- but also business practices.