I went to see Patrick Stewert in “Johnson Over Jordan” at Leeds Play
House many years ago; with a friend that had never seen a play before but knew Next Generation better then I ever could. That night he fell in love with the theatre and I with J.B. Priestly who came from my friend’s hometown of Bradford.

So it was with great delight a few weeks ago that stopping in St Agnes I came across a 1941 edition of J.B. Priestly’s book “Out of the People” at an honesty box village stall. Overjoyed, because his books are out of print, more pennies then asking price if less then it’s real value to me. As you can imagine, the book is how real democracy contrasts with the Nazis, and traditional Toryism.

The play “Johnson Over Jordan” is about a person coming to terms with their life after death. While there is the setting of an after life, who orchestrates, let alone faith allowing admission, is put to one side. This is a personal journey not so much in terms of highs and lows of a life, but the realisation of Johnson’s character as revealed to them in how they behave in the after life. This catharsis leads to acceptance, realisation of self, enlightenment and finally peace.

Priestley was a Christian and believes that an obstacle to democracy is religious decay, which he argues in chapter 7 of the book I am reading. The argument is not against the free thinker but the person that “could neither use faith as a crutch nor reason as a weapon” (Priestly, p.53) whom he feels has a void in their atheism that because they do not care about their fellow creation lacks a social conscience due to not feeling dignity as a part of creation. He defends free thinkers as we know them, as befits the play writer of “Johnson over Jordan”, having avoiding whether the world would be better or worse off without devout religious fervour:

“Again, we must make a sharp distinction between this (i)decay(i) of religious belief and the militant crusading spirit of the freethinker. The later is no longer a familiar type, and hardly belongs to the present era. Whether right or wrong in his conclusions, there was nothing decadent or defeatist about him. He was nearly always both an optimist and a fighter, and often as ardent and selfless in his attempts to deny God as the saints have been to affirm Him. With men of this temper, who nearly always combined a passion for radical reform with their freethinking, a vital democracy was always possible and they would have been among its most public-spirited citizens.” (ibid, p.52-3)

This humanism is in contrast to the apathy of those that not only do not care not only about the question of the existence of god, but lack any empathy with their fellow human beings. I have to take issue that with God vanishing a leader like Hitler can pick up many honours that allow their palpable authority of force to rule without question. Their power empirically proved unlike a creator (ibid, p.54). One only has to think of Napoleon, who increased his power by claim of divine destiny and that all forms of government will tend to monarchism even if only in power but avoid the name but dress in it’s colour. A device the Caesars knew well, and that the religious imperative a way to Men’s hearts that laws could not touch and laid the provenance for others to copy in hopes of emulating the glory of the Empire (or at least as Caesar in their domain).

I think the freethinkers time has come; indeed the Second World War showed that religion and secularism were not enough to bring peace on earth and good will to all (I shall exclude the male pro noun now). It would rather be a dangerous idea that would challenge those that would use the masses as a means to their will. It was the very action of being a free thinker. That the state, nor church, could degree the thoughts of people. That freedom means honest debate and dissent from other’s opinions. That there really was one form of government that could do justifce to this liberty of conscience, and that under it’s imperfect apparatus the people could triumph over the machinations of fascist tyranny.

It is democracy – and long may we be prepared to defend it as a means of freedom to the people, and ever guard our freedoms, and those of others. It may not mean peace on earth, for ever will the unscrupulously ambitious try to usurp the people. But life is not the same value without it and at times it has it’s price.

As reported in today’s The Independent, 10 January 2010

By Omar Waraich in Islamabad

Twenty thousand supporters of fundamentalist parties have rallied in the streets of Karachi in support of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws as they escalated threats against liberal politicians who, like Salmaan Taseer, the slain governor of Punjab, want to see them amended.

The biggest muscle-flexing display by the religious right for years in Pakistan’s largest city come as the government repeatedly insists it will not be pursuing any change of the controversial blasphemy laws.

“We have said we will not be touching this law,” a senior government official said. “We don’t have the resolve to do it now in this charged atmosphere, so why are these mullahs still on the streets?” The demonstration comes amid an opening up of dangerous divisions in Pakistan, where an aggressive religious right has moved mainstream, pushing liberals into a fearful minority.

The protesters shouted slogans against Sherry Rehman, a liberal parliamentarian from the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), who had submitted a bill to amend the blasphemy law to ensure that it was no longer invoked to persecute beleaguered minorities.

“The position is that we will not allow the misuse of the blasphemy law against the minorities and vulnerable sections of society,” said spokesman Farhatullah Babar. “But we have to look at the timing. In this charged atmosphere, it is not possible to review these laws.”

On Friday, the imam of the largest mosque in Karachi declared Ms Rehman an “infidel” who was “worthy of being killed”. On the same night, trucks mounted with megaphones toured a nearby neighbourhood, inciting violence against her.

Speaking from her home in Karachi, where she has been under siege since Mr Taseer’s slaying on Tuesday, Ms Rehman said she was not about to get “unnerved” by the threats. She told The Independent: “The situation is very hairy. I am being careful. There’s no reason to be foolish, but I am not going to be silenced by intimidation.”

Ms Rehman said she was not charting an extreme course. “The bill was not asking for a repeal,” she added. “It was a middle course, calling for procedural changes in the law for which there was broad support from across the political spectrum.” But that support, she said, was not there right now “at an institutional level”.

At the demonstrations, the face of Mr Taseer’s assassin, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, was prominent on placards held by supporters.

The Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, has urged Ms Rehman to leave the country for her own safety, something she is not willing to do. “I am not going to be hounded out of the country,” she said. “They have arranged for a security cordon around my house and told me not to leave it indefinitely.”

Been gone awhile. Watched a documentary about joint venture – whereby a gang member that is there when another kills someone is found equally guilty as if they committed the murder.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the legal position, human life in this world is in many ways a joint venture. We may be by standers but our culpability in human affairs are not immune from examination.

Some gang members had an issue with getting to crips with the concept. Made me wonder how I would explain tolerance, liberalism, science, secularism to them. I decided the word shit may have to be involved. Hence what follows:

Life is too short to shit on other people’s dreams; accept perhaps when their dreams involve shitting on you in which case pointing out that a waking reality on that front means the shit has hit the fan and they will have a bloody mess to clean up.

I don’t have the answers. That does not grant liscense to people with fantasies about an unpalable reality to fill the void. It may grant a warm fuzzy feeling that feels great. It may well be better for you to have positive thoughts in terms of stress and attitude to life.

You don’t need religion to have a false sense of reality; a distorted sense of events and happenings are part of being human. We all have are an approximation of life, the universe and everything to get by. The shit rule above is just to make sure intrusions into my reality do not add to a grosser distortion then I already have beyond my inability to comprhend the atom or the universe.

So I will not go out of my way to poke you in the eye, or shit on you. Yet allow me to dissent, to say it stinks and why the world may be a better place if we did not pile shit sky high as a modern tower of babel. You need more then that if you want to have peace and harmony – it may involve accepting other people’s shit within reason.

The only thing that may improve is respecting other people’s shit, not forcing your shit on other people or shitting on people’s door step. Because covering the world in each other’s shit is not going to bring a brave new world.

Dealing with shit may.

Death, or to be more accurate what is imagined to be after the end of the body’s mortal coil gives up the ghost, is conisdered the main reason for religion.

The fear of death in particular allowing people to cling on to a hope that the meaning of their life is rewarded, or at least continued in the hereafter. That loved ones are waiting for you or will be with you in due course.

The lack of any certainty in how this happens, which god is scoring your worldly doings and intimate thoughts, or the mechanism by which this is accounted for is besides the thought of rationalists to comprehend. The argument goes that hope springs eternal – at least till the last breath.

For loved ones that remain, it is a comfort to think they are in a better place. Even if not considered true, the rituals of pray, going to a chapel or pray room, or seeing a man of the cloth brings a benefit to those in hospital.

The National Secular Society in the UK is arguing that the National Health Service should not pay for these services (effectively not the tax payer). Churches or faith organizations should foot the bill (£40 million a year) for these services so resources can be spent on front care services.

Humanist chaplins do exist – the demand for people to bring comfort, prepare you and loved ones for death or ill health is not in dispute. The funding is given to faith groups on the basis of demand. The idea being if a buddhist Chaplin is at your hospital then their services our required by patients.

Yet this is one which does not get me worked up. Daniel Dennett wrote how disappointed he was people prayed for him when he was rushed to hospital. For him the thanks was due to the staff that battled to save his life.

However, while prayers and people of faith would not raise my spirits, and I see the after life as a fools comfort like relying on the lottery to make you set for life, I am not inclined to take it away from people who do find it helpful.

As to funding these things, I would prefer to see this come from supporters rather than all tax payers. I expect that faith groups do make contributions both financial and of time, the figures would be good to know.

If this went to humanist chaplins too, then there would be a level playing field. The bottom line for me though is what helps the people in hospital, rather than the principle of secularism.

And if that means no humanist chaplins in a hospital but demand enough for a priest and a rabbi then so be it. It does not have to be rational, only demanded and in this circumstance the expense can be justified in welfare terms.

Radio 4 covered this in The Today programe this morning, which can be picked up on podcast.

It has been a while since I wrote a blog. So a nine hour train journey from the West Country to the Midlands (thanks to Sunday engineering works) gives time which can be used to, literally right this wrong in a write way.

So a good place to start are comments which I have now gone through and approved. As usual the Jose Mestre and Jehovah’s Witnesses stance on blood transfusions has the most comment.

In the Blood

To have a substitue for blood in a critical blood loss situation would be brilliant; at the moment though it is only valid for minimal loss.

Health risks are nothing compared to being dead. Especially with death being a fatal condition with no after life healthcare coverage.

This is where my criticism of the religious refusal kicks in. As one who for many years was involved in going door to door in ministry work I do know the theological position, as I mention in another blog. The criminal act of letting your child die rather than give medical treatment, which gives them their only chance at living, is somehow countered with an after life faith in the resurrection. That spiritual care in whatever form has a priority over the material one.

The supernatural has no part in examing the best medical care for your child. A parent has no right to enforce their religious belief in this regard – their duty of care first and foremost is the life and physical well being of their child. Not what their interpretation of a text tells them.

Peace Out

Much as love, peace and understanding are good things the unnecessary death of a child cannot be allowed by a tolerance of religion or agreement that parents may give religious instruction to their children. It is a medical matter, and needs to be thought of in that way.

As to adults making the choice, it is their life to end as irrationally as they wish. In the same way that I can criticize that choice as being morally wrong, not with accord to the teachings of Jesus. The waste of a life, only serving as an example where belief in religion allows people to do things which for any other reason would shock more people to outrage.

My ability to tolerate belief is in the freedom of religion. That does not grant the liberty to inflict harm on those unable to reason for themselves with the ommission of medical care.

Comments

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming (whether you agree or not). When not on a train will link to the ones I am responding to here.

But please bear in mind two key points:

Argue with my points rather than personal comments – and if you do not know what a Homo economicus is think economics rather than sex.

Thanks guys …

Truth is a matter, not of what we believe or feel; of what can be proven without falsehood being allowed to stand on it’s slate. This applies to religion and, as will become apparent, Christmas Quizzes. For example some will claim the bible as truth for being god’s word. Without considering that there is no proof supporting that latter claim as a foundation for the former, for faith alone does not make a text divine. Nor devout assertion make a piece of text sacred. That is left to the imagination of scribblers and critics.

We may yet hope to agree on what the text says. Though there are arguments over the rendering of passages we may at least consult the text to what it says. Rather than rely on songs or common knowledge.

Which brings me to the Christmas Quiz at work, attended by Jews, Muslims, Christians and an infidel. The question was how did the animals go into Noah’s Ark?

For the song it is 2 by 2. Hurrah! Hurrah! I claimed that was half true. For Genesis 7 has god instructing Noah on entering the ark with his family:

2take with you seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each unclean animal.3Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird. Do this so that every kind of animal and bird will be kept alive to reproduce again on earth.

I was the only one to point this out. The non believer sticking to biblical text. As we had done on the question of how many ghosts visited Mr Scrooge – 4 when you count Jacob Marley warning him of the other three.

Religious friends tell me that atheists assume that they should be fundementalists with regards their faith. Perhaps one reason why people claim faith is that they do not grapple with fundementals. For if you think animals went in two by two, then examining the tennents of your faith is not the rock upon which you base it.

Rather common knowledge suggests that they so marched. Common knowledge should not be confused with a sense of things as they are. The latter allows us to find out about things by inquiry and empirical objectivity. The former allows what is held by tradition or acclaim, by appeal to populaism to be true.

Let us not limit ourselves to common knowledge when there are better fruits to pluck and feast upon. No matter who tells you not too.

If what I now write has atheists and devout belivers criticising this blog then I will have achieved what I set out to do. Which is to take both viewpoints outside the comfort zones of the holders.

That how right you believe your view to be is not a reason to hold others to your belief.

Even though atheism is not based on fantasy, or at least on super natural power, this does not mean that we can enforce those views on others.

What we can do is assess the actions that are a consequence of the thought. We need more than a correlation – we need causation, that the belief leads to the act.

As much as we may not wish to phrase it otherwise, atheism is a belief. We may argue that we have better data leading to the conclusion. However we cannot claim it as a fact – otherwise we do exactly what creationists do when they say evolution is only a theory. We cannot debase language by our emotion or force of conviction.

The belief that Jesus was born on 25 December does not hurt me. That it may be celebrated with a tree and tacky decorations is none of my business. The consequence of the belief does not cause harm.

Howver, when I ask you to look at the evidence that the early Christians focused on Jesus’ death not birth. Save for Matthew whose writings appealed to the Greek epic of omens fortelling deity. That the date chosen for commeration is more about pagan significance and convience than historical accuracy.

Faith is not a free ride. You may tell me that your partner is beautiful and your children smart. You are entitled to that view, however I shall choose the opinion that is independent of yours. Do not hold me to your view publicly – it may get ugly.

The above analogy is appropiate because people may feel comforted in their belief of their family as they do about their faith. I suspect though that we all know a family whose belief in their virtues is liable to loose it’s gloss with the disinfectant of scrutiny.

Maybe hands off would be polite. Certainly well mannered if we do not want an argument. Thing is that in the world of competiting faiths is like drunken husbands fighting over whose wife is most virtuous, while the wives prepare their children to dominate the future.

We cannot argue that if Dawkins and co would only shut up then an uneasy ceasefire may exist. Such is the power of thought and to silence is to deny who we are. Thinking animals moved to action based on thought. Not necessarily rationally based but the pack should be allowed to rip the bad ones to pieces for the survival of the best ideas.

So trump card – tolerance of thought. The limits are where the actions of those thoughts lead to consequences against the thoughts of others. Censorship being one, styfling debate another.

The more I see Hitchens debate Rabbis and others makes me think of Douglas Adams and the philosophers arguing about the computer giving answers to philosohical debates. Deep Thought responds that the wait for such answers can set them on the gravy train for life as long as they could vemenently disagree with each other.

The truth is the undiscovered country, but while some become rich on the journey we all benefit from the experience. The sparring, and the friction may lead to ugly moments.

Freedom of thought, the plurality of ideas is important if we want to discover answers. You have to accept that, as in Deep Thoughts words, you are not going to like it. Always.

Phill Woolas, Immigration Minister, saying how it is

Well, if you mean 50 years, Woolas commented:

“Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going. Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords you open up debate about the make-up of the House,” he told the newspaper.”

“It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multi faith.”

So who is in the way of allowing people to choose their faith or none without the state privledging one over another?

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “The Church of England is by law established as the Church in England and the Monarch is its Supreme Governor.

“The government remains committed to this position and values the establishment of the Church of England.” [BBC]

Woolas’ point – which along with a Sunday Times interview have come to haunt him in his new role as Immigration Minister – was that reform of the House of Lords was needed. Once that happens you cannot ignore the unelected Bishops of the Church of England there. Nor the role the monarch plays as head of an established church to which the majority of subjects are not actively a part of.

The reason why this is not a government priority:

The Government has reassured the Church of England that it will not embark on any move towards disestablishment unless the Church asks it to do so. With the Church bogged down in disputes over gays and women clergy, the last thing that it wants is a row over disestablishment. In Lambeth Palace and Whitehall the issue is considered political dynamite. [The Times]

It has the hallmarks of passions being stirred on all sides of the debate. The thing is that the best arguments are not on Lambeth or Westminster’s side. Citizens should be free to pursue their religious belief without having one privileged over another. The question of belief is an entirely a private matter. You do not have to believe in hell to be a member of the Church of England. That is not a question of belief but a matter of law on the statute book by parliament.

There is however a danger that rather than going ahead with disestablishment, the Labour Government will actually try to have religion encouraged in the public sphere. Sharia Law is already being practised for civil cases via Sharia Councils in Britain:

The councils do not involve themselves in criminal law or any aspects of civil law in which they would be in direct conflict with British civil codes. The vast majority of their cases cover marriage and divorce. By consent of all parties, they may also arbitrate issues of property, child custody, housing and employment disputes, though their rulings are not binding unless submitted to the civilian courts. [source]

The issue here is the nature of the consent by all parties, and whether all parties know about access to British civil codes and how to abject. This really must be stressed when you consider the number of women that may be subjected to Sharia Councils who do not speak English. By what token are we assured that they know their rights under English law?

Meanwhile the report Moral, But No Compass, backed by the Church of England suggestion is to have a Minister for Religion. As if 26 Bishops in the House of Lords was not enough representation. As one blogger commented:

the moment this minister sets foot in a church, the Muslims would demand visits to their mosques with increasingly-taller minarets, and then the Sikhs would want a visit to their shining new gurdwaras, and thence to mandirs, and viharas. And at some point the minister would have to make statements in the House about the status of Scientology, and feel obliged to celebrate Yoda’s birthday at the House of Commons with the Jedi Knight fraternity, if only to win their endorsement and votes. [Cranmer]

Hopefully the Conservative Humanist Association can ensure that the Minister for Religion idea is not one adopted as Conservative Policy – though it could be a move to gather back Anglicans feeling slighted by the Labour Government. Despite the fact that this government is very much in favour of faith based initiatives – signalling them out for special praise in the Goldsmith report.

The real reason is that the government sees the whole issue as a Gordian Knot where the monarchy, Church of England and House of Lords all intertwine. To sever one is to unravel them all, in a way that the government fears it could not control. A church that would be free to be political, rather than just a public servant. An elected head of state with executive power independent of the Cabinet. An elected House of Lords with legitimacy to take on the lower chamber more often.

It could also be one of those things that power is only ever given away when it is expedient too or the institution that has it cares not to have such exercise of authority. The political problem though remains. The issue is one that has to be advanced on a human rights front. The state cannot effectively favour all religions, nor should it use taxpayers money to privilege one over the other. Giving religious civil courts sanction to make rulings over citizens is a breach that all are the same under the law where legally unqualified people will render verdicts based on their interpretation of holy texts – which do not favour the equal treatment of people regardless of gender, and have a notion of property rights inconsistent with moder law.

The feminists should be burning Korans, and the government should be having an almighty headache over the dalliance with organised religion. Right now it bears the harlot upon it’s back – when will the beast shake itself free of the rider that feels secure debauched on the legitimacy of their union on the statue books? Some may say it would mark the end of the world, a new world order (a book on Revelation interpretations would be how many volumes?). What it should mean is the sovereignty of belief resides in the private minds of the citizens, and not a matter of the government who should protect the freedom of religion and speech by advocating those human rights values, rather than religion being able take them away and make them their own, with the complicit government allowing it’s citizens to be unequally treated in civil cases.

OTHER BLOGS:

Secularism – why it is good for us all

He said at least 100 have been killed, more than 50,000 displaced and 100,000 Christians affected by the violence that followed the Aug 23 killing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader.[source]

Religious extremism “one of the greatest threats,” says Kobia

The World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia has said that “one of the greatest problems facing the world today is religious extremism.”

Kobia expressed his concern over the recent outbreak of violence against Christians in the eastern India state of Orissa during a visit to the national headquarters of the Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) in New Delhi, India.

The meeting with the staff of CASA, the charity wing of a grouping of 24 Orthodox and Protestant churches in India, was the first activity in a 16-23 October visit to India and Sri Lanka.

Anti-Christian violence in Orissa was sparked off by the killing of Hindu leader Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati on 23 August. Though Maoist rebels have claimed responsibility for the killing, Hindu groups said it was a Christian conspiracy as the slain leader based in Kandhamal had vigorously campaigned against conversion to Christianity.

In the unabated violence that continues into the eighth week now, at least 54 Christians have been killed, more than 5,000 Christian houses along with 142 churches and dozens of Christian institutions have been looted and torched by Hindu fundamentalists in Kandhamal.

With marauding Hindu groups forcibly converting Christians to Hinduism, more than two thirds of the 100,000 Christians in Kandhamal have become refugees in jungles, relief camps run by the government or have fled to cities like Bhubaneswar, the state capital.

India had been a good model of “harmonious co-existence” of diverse faiths. But this image of India, Kobia said, had been dented by a “few fundamentalists” in Orissa although the majority of the population was peace loving.

Kobia reminded the approximately forty CASA staff representatives - a majority of whom are Hindus – that “it is time for people of all faiths to come together”. “What needs to be done is to help people live together upholding the dignity of each other irrespective of their faith,” Kobia stressed.

In welcoming Kobia, CASA executive director Sushanto Aggarwal said that “much more than a religious issue, the orchestrated attacks on Christians are a question of fundamental rights”.

Kobia urged the organization “to help the victims of the current sectarian violence as it did with those of the partition”. More than two million people were killed on both sides of the new border during the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent into Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan.

The WCC general secretary hailed the “tremendous and dedicated service” of CASA during the last 61 years. “Belated congratulations to you,” Kobia said referring to the 60 years that CASA marked in 2007. “I know what it means to you as we at the WCC, too, are celebrating our 60 years now,” he added.

The Indian church charity was born in 1947, simultaneously with the independence of India from colonial British rule. Today, it has over 500 staff across the country.

The idea that religion automatically makes people better social animals is shown to not be the case when you consider why fragmentation, rather than unity, is happening in the communion.

Religious diversity

Mergers, acquisitions and spin-offs

Oct 16th 2008 | AMSTERDAM, BELFAST AND MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition

When Christian groups reunite, watch out for the next split

ON THE southern rim of Moscow, where the din of traffic gives way to a silent forest, three steeples shimmer over the trees. On closer inspection, these belong to a magnificent new church. Inside it, and in a much cosier wooden edifice next door, every inch of wall commemorates people who were massacred in this area 60 years ago. Many are depicted in icons, celebrating them as martyrs whose prayers in the afterlife protect the church.

This memorial to victims of Stalin’s purges (albeit mainly recalling one category, Christian believers) sends a timely message to a Russia where reflection on the perils of an over-mighty state is rare. Its construction is one reason why, last year, most of the New York-based Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) agreed to unite with the Patriarchate of Moscow, which “White” anticommunist exiles long saw as tainted by red links.

But for a passionate minority of ROCOR clerics and believers, dotted across North and South America, Europe and Australia, the Moscow-based church hasn’t gone nearly far enough to justify coming together. For these dissidents, it matters a lot that hierarchs in Moscow still approve the accord made with the communists in 1927 by Sergius, an Orthodox bishop who signed a statement accepting the Soviet Union as a “civil motherland”. By justifying Sergius, the dissidents insist, the Moscow church implicitly condemns others who went underground or remained defiant and paid with their lives.

The dissenters’ argument is that by defending deals made under the Soviet regime, today’s church is endorsing a Soviet-era episcopate which not only obeyed Stalin but fawned on him. Supporters of the reunion retort that most of today’s Russian episcopate was elevated after the Soviet period; they also hope that the reunion will help along a continuing reassessment of all eras of Russian history. Across the Russian diaspora, the dispute has divided parishes and formerly close-knit communities. Priests have broken with bishops, theology students with their professors.

The intra-Russian dispute is only one example of a paradox in the recent history of the world’s largest religion. Almost every time two Christian communities—split by politics, race, culture or doctrine—decide to reunite, a new division is created by those who cannot accept the merger.

In Christendom as a whole, most recent merger activity has been among schools of Protestantism which now feel that doctrinal differences between John Calvin (1509-1564) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) shouldn’t be a make-or-break matter in the 21st century.

The Geneva-based World Council of Churches (WCC), an association of about 350 Christian groups, has counted 50 “reunited” churches (all involving varieties of Protestantism) and 40 churches that are engaged in talks that could lead to further mergers. But not even the WCC’s keenest enthusiasts are sure that the movement towards unity is stronger than the trend towards fragmentation.

In any case, for Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians the idea of a “reunion” between churches is paradoxical, if not contradictory; they speak of the Church as a mystical reality of which they are the main or sole representatives, and which almost by definition cannot be divided. For Protestants, the idea at least of “uniting churches” is not so problematic. A dozen intra-Protestant mergers have been modelled on one that occurred in Canada in 1925. India is one of the few countries where Christians who defer to bishops managed to merge with those who don’t.

But the world’s fastest-growing sects, typically those stressing dramatic personal experience, such as speaking in strange tongues, are uninterested in uniting with anybody. They view the WCC as soft-minded or worse. In this they resemble the “White” Russians, who also abhor the Moscow Patriarchate’s membership of the WCC. (The Muscovites this week left the Conference of European Churches, a WCC affiliate, but that probably won’t satisfy their most conservative critics.)

Going Dutch and divided

Even among those who are interested in reunion, recent news is mixed. In South Africa, the mainly black and coloured Reformed churches have voiced dismay over the refusal of their white compatriots in the Dutch Reformed church to accept their terms for union. While the white Dutch Reformers have eschewed their old belief in apartheid, some couldn’t quite swallow the “Belhar Confession”, a document written in 1986 which stresses racial and social inclusiveness.

In those quarrelsome South Africans’ spiritual home, the Netherlands, intra-Protestant rows also smoulder on in some places. That is despite (or rather, because of) a giant merger sealed in 2004.

This involved the two biggest Reformed groups, plus a few Lutherans; it seemed to many people like a good outcome of a rapprochement that had been under way for 40 years. But not all approved. In the Dutch “Bible belt” from the Zeeland islands to the eastern border, some 60,000 people established a new “Restored Reformed Church” professing true Calvinism.

Some of the issues at stake are familiar from other Christian battlegrounds, such as the Anglican Communion, where the question of gay rights has split southern-hemisphere conservatives from northern liberals. The Dutch traditionalists reject female pastors and same-sex unions. But the Dutch old-timers’ deeper objection is to sloppy mixing of two traditions: their own Calvinism, stressing the “depravity” of mankind, and the Lutheran view, which is a bit gentler. “We pledged to follow the original Reformist path, and it is a biblical calling that you must continue to do what you promised,” says Willem van Vlastuin, a “restored” church pastor who serves 1,300 souls in the coastal town of Katwijk.

Before 2004, conservatives in the Netherlands’ reformed churches (there were two with similar names) could rub along with the liberal camp because they still belonged to bodies that claimed, at least, to be Calvinist. Once the waters were muddied by throwing in a new, Lutheran set of beliefs, the conservatives marched out. Just as happened with the Russian reunion, some clerics hovered between the amalgamated body and the dissidents, in a few cases switching sides more than once.

In Protestant redoubts such as Scotland and Ulster, there are sects (small in numbers but still dominant in certain places, like the Scottish island of Raasay) which glory in the fact that they or their forebears rejected past efforts to patch over differences. Both the Free Church of Scotland (“wee frees”) and the Free Presbyterian Church (“wee wee frees”) take pride in having eschewed an amalgam between Scotland’s main Protestant churches, achieved a century ago through a slight blurring of theological edges. But like many zealous groups, both Scotland’s hardline Protestant sects have been wracked by squabbles, personal and theological. Ulster’s Free Presbyterians (separate from the Scottish ones) avoided a split last year only after the resignation of their founder, the pastor-politician Ian Paisley.

Schisms and scandals have also raged among the Greek Orthodox clerics who quit their national church in the 1920s when it adopted the modern calendar. And for people who have seen the militant edges of Christianity in several places, there are psychological parallels, at least, between Orthodoxy’s old-calendar holdouts and the ultra-Protestants. “Aesthetically, they are very different, but they are similar in their zeal and exclusivity,” says Sofka Zinovieff, an Anglo-Russian writer who knows both Scotland and Greece.

Even for people professionally committed to Christian unity, such as Odair Pedroso Mateus, a Brazilian Protestant who watches church reunions for the WCC, there is a feeling that shoehorning religious groups together isn’t always feasible or desirable. “Institutional reunion was a modern idea—perhaps in the post-modern era, we have to reconcile the existing diversity,” he says.