“This House Would Move Beyond Organised Religion.”
Image Credit: Niamh Jones
Co-authored by Freya Jones (Proposition) and Nidhi Bhaskar (Opposition)
Tensions ran high at the Oxford Union’s debate on organised religion last week. Eminent representatives of the world’s major religions were present and many viewed the motion as preposterous. With organised religion forming such an integral part of our history, how could we possibly move beyond it? Read on to see our views on the debate, while considering whether organised religion is truly positive or whether modern society would do better without it.
In favour of the proposition
I rarely have trouble forming an opinion on something, but this week’s debate motion has been hard. However, I do believe that moving beyond organised religion could be a good thing. Needless to say, I am an atheist, and a dedicated atheist at that. Not because I’m a massive sceptic and find Richard Dawkins more credible than the Bible, but because I’m frankly indifferent to the concept of God. Having grown up without religion, I don’t feel like I’ve missed out on anything – in fact, atheism has not prevented me from leading a fulfilled and interesting life. I therefore question why anyone shouldn’t be able to save themselves the time (and undoubted hassle) of organised religion and do without it.
This is only a question, of course – I acknowledge that many people, including my good friends, find a lot of joy, comfort and community in religion. I would never want to deny them that, especially if their practice doesn’t harm anyone. However, the tenet of my argument is that you can gain many of organised religion’s positives from elsewhere. In fact, this may well be a preferable way forward when you consider religion’s archaic and damaging aspects.
Many dominant religions are based around patriarchal structures: in Catholicism, a woman’s bodily autonomy is limited by the Church’s anti-abortion and anti-contraception stance – frequently with tragic consequences. In Hinduism, many women still hope to die before their husband, believing their lives to be purposeless without him, and the practice of widow-burning was observed for years. In Islam, women must observe purdah and are given considerably less freedom that their male counterparts. While debate obviously stems from the fact that some women happily follow these paths, I still believe that religion’s rigid perpetuation of outdated stereotypes is hindering the progress of secular society.
For example, the homophobic and transphobic narratives which live on in many of the UK’s Church congregations have undoubtedly hindered the acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights. And this is before we get onto the frankly disgusting way in which religion’s old-fashioned clandestine untouchability has enabled high numbers of priests to abuse their undeserved privileges by committing condemnable sex offences. Taking a step back, organised religion is about binding people together to follow the same ideologies. But when these ideologies are so old and full of practices which damage the modern era, should we not take the reasonable step of moving beyond it?
One may argue that reforming the Church would be an appropriate compromise, in the way that law is reformed when it becomes obsolete or unsuitable. But would a reform of religion really work when effected for secular or wider social purposes? Would people believe it? Such a change would undoubtedly cause conflict , and there’s already been so much arbitrary bloodshed in the name of religion that I’d need a much longer article to discuss it.
Given that we live in a society where counselling, community, and support for those in need can be provided elsewhere, it would surely be best to seek these things without the presumptuous strings of religion attached. For this reason, I think organised religion is a precariously perpetuated hallmark of the past which doesn’t need a place in our future.
Summary of Union Speakers
Lucas Hooper
Lucas Hooper drew attention to the historical damage done by religion, noting its part in wars, persecution and the elites’ oppression of the masses. He argued that the fanaticism of many believers is dangerous to the diversity and inclusion of a secular society.
Professor Linda Woodhead
Professor Linda Woodhead spoke about how losing her faith was a person tragedy but has also lead her to a place of liberation. She argued that organised religion can be stifling and damage one’s ability to think independently, as well as acting in the interests of institution rather than God.
Imam Monawar Hussain
The Imam argued that religion implemented through organised structures cannot equip people for modern life. He encouraged people to find their own inner spirituality and connection with God, believing that this will lead to greater peace than adherence to the practices of a specific religious community.
Chloe Glynn
Chloe Glynn spoke about the damage done by the patriarchy and intolerance perpetuated by the Church, arguing that we must move beyond outdated religious thought if we are to achieve modern social equality.
In favour of the opposition
Most individuals are not yet ready to outgrow organised religion and find meaning through personal spirituality. Organised religion ties aspects of order and law to morality in a way that science cannot. Throughout history, legal systems ranging from Christian Canon law to the Sharia legal system have inseparably bound the law with semblances of morality stemming from religious values. Since systems of government and citizenship provide a sense of belonging to geographic communities, religion transcends state boundaries to afford a global sense of belonging according to shared moral value systems.
Religion allows individuals to develop empathy and consideration for other people from a young age and can be a powerful catalyst for adding value to moral behaviour. Furthermore, for those who do not feel compelled by the straightforward rationality of the law, religion provides a further avenue encouraging individuals to live by a moral code. Within the priorities of most major religions, there remains a structured focus on tenets such as discipline, sensitivity, and altruistic behaviour that followers of the religion are compelled to follow, either for the sake of self-actualization or for fear of divine retribution. Abandoning religion would destabilize this framework in place for sharing and implementing ethical behaviour, detrimentally affecting value systems worldwide.
The presence of organised religion also enables individuals to come together and display faith within their own communities, giving them a greater sense of belonging and control over their emotions. On a core level, human beings and their decisions are most often guided and shaped by emotion, rather than pure rationality, making this very important. Furthermore, the organisation of religious communities allows for the organisation of collective action in the forms of church-affiliated hospitals, food banks, and more.
Organised religion does not preclude the need to restructure, reorganise and rethink religious influence in our society. Divesting a singular religious system from controlling governing bodies and imposing its values on all citizens is necessary to create environments where all faiths can enjoy equal rights. Furthermore, religious institutions themselves must be quick to denounce acts of hatred or harm done in the name of religion. In considering other overarching structures within society such as politics or education, religion simply provides another guiding set of structures for encouraging moral values and maintaining order in society. Consequently, we must ethically reform and improve institutions of organised religion in favour of bolstering tolerance, while retaining and accepting these as central tenets of society that we cannot move beyond.
Summary of Union Speakers
Jenny Grehan-Bradley
Jenny argued that there can be no such thing as religion without organisation, so to move beyond organised religion would be to move beyond religion completely. She said this would bah a detrimental effect on people’s support systems and mental health, so the reorganisation of religion would be a better way to address problems.
Professor Sondra Hausner
Professor Sondra Hausner argued that there is no such thing as individual spirituality because our personal beliefs are all influenced by human identity. Given that humans tend towards spirituality, she believes that we should therefore maintain a common moral code.
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain argued that moving beyond religion itself is out of the question and that organised religion is still no worse than anything else organised. When referring to wars fought in the name of religion, he stated that they could just have easily been fought for another reason, due to human nature, and this is no reason to abolish the historic safety-nets of faith.
Archbishop Eamon Martin
The Archbishop argued that personal spirituality is mere sentiment and that organised religion is the only way to form a true connection with higher powers. When questioned on the Catholic Church’s pro-life stance, he stated that the purpose of religion is to uphold God’s will and the wider good of humanity.