You are here:   Counterpoints > Sacrificial lamb
 

"The Sacrificial Lamb", by Josefa de Ayala, c.1670


Tim Farron’s resignation as Liberal Democrat leader is a prime example of the cost of admitting to religious views in a liberal, secular society. As a religious studies teacher in a secondary school, I notice this all the time. And never more so than last year.

It was the autumn term and I was teaching 12-year-olds the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Usually these lessons pass smoothly. The atheists are happy that none of the arguments work and the theists don’t care because they have their own faith and experience.

Last year, it was different. Suddenly there emerged a number of girls so strident in their atheism that no one dared to contradict them or even venture to suggest an alternative position. The lessons became unbalanced and uncomfortable. Girls who had faith became distressed. One even asked to be excused from lessons.

Something had to be done. I told the class to split into three groups: agnostics, atheists and theists. Each group was to prepare a presentation about their beliefs and then stand up and make it to the class. During their presentation, no one else was allowed to speak. Or make a sound. Or gesture.   

The groups worked away busily. First up were the agnostics, explaining why they couldn’t adopt a position. Then came the atheists, their arguments unsurprising: the presence of suffering in the world; the possibility that religion was merely a crutch; the absence of evidence for the existence of God. Finally it was the turn of the theists.

Only four were willing to talk — two Catholics and two Muslims. Quietly and hesitantly, they spoke in turn about their faith. One shook visibly. Another had to leave the room for a while. When they finished their presentation they went out into the corridor, burst into tears and hugged.

The next lesson, I invited questions, channelled through me, for each group. I can’t remember the girls’ questions but I can remember mine. I wanted to know why these 12-year-old atheists were so angry. What had engendered such emotion? One girl said her mother was forcing her to go to Christian summer camp, though she didn’t believe in God. Another said she was never allowed to take the credit when she did well in a test because her mother always attributed her result to God. The third said that she actually quite liked the idea of God but, whenever she said that, her mother got cross. 

After those lessons, everyone calmed down. Everyone’s voice had been heard and no one felt stifled or angry. I’m not sure what the girls made of the exercise but the lesson, for me, was clear. Stifled, unheard voices beget upset and anger. Lead to a class of distressed twelve-year-olds. Lead to Brexit, a hung Parliament and the election of Donald Trump. If we want a society which is calm and stable, liberal and tolerant, we can’t trample on the views of others. Tim Farron’s voice was stifled. He resigned. A minor sacrificial lamb, perhaps, but I hope his final bleating makes people sit up and think.  

 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
August 6th, 2017
3:08 PM
Those 12 year old girls might be angry because they are put into a world where religion has dictated everything since men sat in caves trying to understand fire. The only way that they can make their voices heard is by being fierce and using facts that religious people simply refuse to accept. You tilted the scale in favor of the atheists and the agonists so that you could write a shitty article complaining that atheists are mean, of course theists will lose when they have to argue in something they cant know but something they can believe.

S R H
June 28th, 2017
8:06 PM
In what way was Tim Farron's voice stifled? The turning point appeared to be his response to a legitimate question put to him by the media about whether he believes homosexuality to be sinful. Like most people, I expect, I was happy for him to attempt to combine the leadership of a supposedly liberal political party with a belief in a Christian god, so long as he was open about the possible conflicts which that would place him in. Eventually he was unable to reconcile the two. His voice was never trampled on in a political system that privileges religion and Christianity in particular, or by a media that still assume most British people are at heart Christians to some degree.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.