The post Escaping Ideology with Jonathan Church: Freethinker editor Daniel James Sharp in conversation appeared first on The Freethinker.

Introduction 

Brian Cox was born in Dundee in 1946 and has been a star of stage and screen for decades. His stage roles include Titus Andronicus and King Lear, and his film and TV credits include Sharpe, Manhunter (in which he played the first on-screen Hannibal Lecter), Rob Roy, Braveheart, Troy, X2: X-Men United, Churchill, and Succession. At the time this interview was conducted over Zoom (21 August 2024), Brian was in Glasgow about to start work directing on a new project. He couldn’t tell me much about this, except that it was something he had wanted to do for a very long time.  

Although we were pressed for time and the discussion could have gone on for much longer and in many directions, we covered a lot of ground, including Brian’s views on religion, acting as a form of humanism, the conflict in Gaza, sectarianism in Glasgow, Johnny Depp, Ian McKellen, Irn Bru addiction, and Scottish independence. All of this and more appears in the edited transcript of (and selected audio excerpts from) our conversation below.  

Interview 

Daniel James Sharp: Earlier this year, you caused a bit of a stir by labelling the Bible ‘one of the worst books ever’ and full of ‘propaganda and lies.’ But you also acknowledged the need people have for comfort and consolation. For you, though, theatre is the ‘one true church…the church of humanity.’ Is acting a form of humanism, then? 

Brian Cox: Yes. I don’t believe in churches, but if you need a church, theatre is the church of humanity. Acting is absolutely humanism. It’s based on who people are, what their belief systems are, how they’re plagued by their belief systems, and how they have to reconcile themselves to these belief systems—and when you think about it, in my view, that means reconciling themselves to something which is completely fictitious.  

It’s understandable that people need to believe in something because we live in an age where we’re so confused. What nobody ever talks about is where we are in our own state of evolution, because we’re clearly not fully evolved beings. If we were, we wouldn’t be doing what we’re doing again and again. We wouldn’t have a Putin situation. We wouldn’t have a Netanyahu situation. I feel that we have to be evolved. We are evolving, but we are not there yet. We’re a long way off, and we are in danger of destroying ourselves because of our own stupidity. At the root of a lot of our problems is tribalism. Am I Islamic? Am I Jewish? Etcetera.  

The Jews were treated appallingly by Nazi Germany, and they then founded their own state. But now they have all sorts of problems there. There’s a great division among Jewry, including some great friends of mine, about what is happening in Gaza and elsewhere right now. Because of what happened on 7 October last year, a lot of them are very afraid, and we have to understand that. But the genocide that is being committed is inexcusable on any level, and you have to put it down to the extreme right-wing Jewish government—which is not wholly representative of the Jewish people. That’s very important to note. A lot of the Jewish people do not like what’s going on in Gaza. And anti-Semitism is not the answer, of course. Anti-Semitism is what gave rise to fascism and we have to be very careful about that.  

That is just one example of the danger of being beholden to belief systems. They trap us, they don’t liberate us. They may give us comfort, they may give us what they call faith, but at the end of the day, they are not helpful. They are not ultimately helpful to the human spirit, at all.

Just on the point about Israel and Palestine, I think it is also worth keeping in mind that it’s the same with the Palestinians as it is in Israel: Hamas is not necessarily representative of the Palestinians as a whole. 

Exactly, nor are the Yasser Arafats necessarily representative. It’s awful how they are using Gaza for their own ends. When it comes to these situations, I always feel for the children. They live in these conditions created by the mistakes of adults. I just cannot stand what’s happened to the children in Gaza. How many children have been killed? A disproportionate number of children have been killed because of these adults’ mistakes.  

I don’t in any way excuse Hamas at all. I do not excuse people who hide behind law-abiding citizens, innocents, because of their own disharmony with the system. Yes, I understand that Palestine has suffered a lot of persecution—psychological persecution as much as anything else—but I don’t excuse Hamas. I certainly don’t excuse what happened on 7 October, not at all. That was horrendous.  

But what has happened in Palestine as a result is also just appalling. This is where belief systems do not support you. They support your view over that view, but they’re not about harmony.  

I compare it with Glasgow, where I am right now. If you come to Glasgow, it’s quite ecumenical with its Islamic and Catholic populations. It’s quite free. Of course, it has its streaks of racism, and that is always going to be there—that fear that man has about his fellow that he can’t quite understand. But on the whole, Glasgow is doing well. 

I feel that we’re in such a state of setback at the moment. We are failing to understand how we’re evolving. We’re going through such horrific things at the moment, and the thing that stops us from evolving is being stuck in these belief systems.  

Could you explain a little more what you mean by these external belief systems being inimical to the human spirit? What is the human spirit? 

What is the notion of a freethinker? It means a person who thinks freely, without any trammelling of any kind. Their thinking is of a sense of liberation, the liberation of the human spirit (their actions might be a different matter, of course). I’m not a classified ‘freethinker’, but that’s what I would have thought a freethinker is. I rather admire and respect that.  

I’ve been thinking about why I’m talking to a freethinking magazine. I think because there is a problem at the moment with the cancel culture that we live under. There’s not a lot of free thinking going around. … Cancel culture is offensive and damaging to the human spirit. 

I believe in the human spirit. We don’t understand our own mystery. We try to codify it. ‘Say your prayers and it’ll all get better and then you’ll have something at the end of your life.’ But that’s a mystery, and nobody knows anything about that. All we know about is what we’ve got to deal with now, with our two legs, two arms, and two hands, and a head that can, perhaps, function. I feel quite passionate about that. We should give it the respect it deserves and not fall into these systems. 

My sister was a strong Catholic. She cleaned the church. But at the end of the day, when she was dying, I said to her, ‘Where do you think you’re going to end up?’ And she said, ‘It doesn’t really matter, does it?’ That was her conclusion after 90-odd years of life. And that’s the truth. It doesn’t really matter when it comes to those elements which are definable, but it does matter to something else that we don’t even know about. 

I did want to ask a little about your background. You’re from a working-class Scots-Irish Catholic family. And you’re in Glasgow right now, which, historically, was torn apart by sectarianism. 

Oh yes, Glasgow has always been sectarian, because of the Orange Order. The Glorious Twelfth. ‘Our father knew the Rome of old and evil is thy name…And on the Twelfth, I love to wear the sash my father wore.’ [Lines from Protestant anti-Catholic songs, the latter celebrating the ‘Glorious Twelfth’, the victory of the Protestant King William III over the deposed Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.] All in service of William of Orange, and what was he, except a good Proddie? 

The Catholics are good survivors because they’ve been hacked about ad infinitum. But there are also the acts that have been committed under the guise of Catholicism—the [Magdalene Laundries in Ireland], for example, and all those poor, misbegotten women who worked for them—so there is a lot of questioning there and nobody is exempt.  

And my sister, in the end, said that it doesn’t really matter. What does matter? We matter. Not our religion, not our faith, not our belief systems. We matter. Let’s try and understand who we are as a herd animal and as an individual animal. But we don’t even go there. Instead, we come up with all these stories that justify certain things.

And art is a way to understand ourselves. 

Yes. Art is the way I do that. Art is a way of looking at the world, and of looking at everybody in the world. From a dramatic point of view, we are looking at how human beings behave. What screws them up? What are their ambitions? What do they want? Why do they want it? Is it necessary? No, it’s not. Well then, why do they want it? Is it some kind of neurotic force at work or is it something else? That’s what actors do when we work on a role, we’re examining what’s going on. And that’s where all the belief systems can come into it. ‘Oh, I see, he’s Jewish, he’s got that kind of belief. Oh, but he doesn’t like being Jewish. Why does he not like that?’ Do you see what I mean? You’re creating an exploration of the human psyche, which to me is the great gift of acting.  

Who are your favourite actors? 

Spencer Tracy, for me, was the greatest screen actor ever, by far. He was extraordinary. He was very tormented, very Catholic, very guilt-ridden, but a great artist. The ease and the flawlessness and the way he negotiates stuff—tremendous. And he and [Katharine] Hepburn were extraordinary together. So, I think Hepburn is another of my favourite actors. 

Another is Cary Grant, who was a construct of a personality because of his horrific background, and he played all these wonderful, mysterious kinds of characters who just said, ‘I really don’t give a fuck.’ And of course, there’s [Marlon] Brando and Jimmy Dean, even though he didn’t live all that long. 

There are a few actors who grew better over time. Paul Newman got infinitely better as an actor as he got older. As a young man, he was a bit more confused.  

It’s a great craft, acting. And it is a craft. It’s a craft of human sensibility. Where are we coming from? Why are we doing it? What is it? What does it mean? What are we trying to achieve? And the truth is, we don’t know. We don’t know, because we’ve got all this other stuff that we have to deal with, that we’ve got to get through. 

That’s why I was interested in talking to somebody from a freethinking magazine. What is free thinking, and how free can thought really be these days? Or is there some impediment that makes it non-viable to think freely?  

I think it’s difficult to think freely at the best of times, but especially now. There’s so much pressure to conform to certain standards and ideologies.  

That’s right. And that’s why you’ve got to say, ‘Fuck it! I’m going to think freely.’ When the pressure is great, you don’t give up. It reinforces who you are. It looks as if you’re in doubt, but you’re dealing with a shit storm of meteors coming at you, and it’s very important to be able to think freely. I’m grateful because I think I’ve been able to do that for most of my life, and I didn’t even know I was doing it, and I did it because I didn’t have the usual constricts of family and parents and what have you. 

‘Fuck it, think freely!’ should be our new motto. You are well known for speaking your mind about politics, religion, and even fellow actors.  

I’ve got to shut up about fellow actors. I’m a bit naughty about that. It’s a hard game, and I sort of regret saying anything. And even if I did say something, it wasn’t meant as a damning criticism. It’s a question of taste. Not everybody likes everything other people do. I sort of regret calling Johnny Depp ‘so overblown, so overrated’ in my autobiography because he is fine in many ways. There are some things he isn’t fine at but, on the whole, he’s fine. He’s certainly very popular. It’s an imperious thing of me to do, to shoot on about somebody like that, because it’s a tough job.  

The best actors are children, and the greatest actors are the ones who can still be doing it at my age. I’m not saying I’m the greatest, just to be clear, but you know what I mean. I have great respect for people of my generation who are still doing it. 

In your autobiography, you talk about your and Ian McKellen’s different philosophies or styles of acting. I have a lot of admiration for both of you as actors.  

I love Ian, I really do, and I love him even more as he’s got older. He’s just a different style from me and naturally, I’m going to prefer my style, but that’s not about saying I’m any better. I’m not. I just prefer the way I work to the way he works.  

But he is a very special man in so many ways. He’s been a great champion, especially in the homosexual rights movement, standing up to Clause 28 and everything. He’s done phenomenal things in that way, so I have total respect for him. 

He’s a very sound man, in terms of his politics. I’ll still argue about the acting a wee bit. But as a man, I love him. We’ve known each other for a long time. We were neighbours recently. When I was doing the play Long Day’s Journey Into Night, he was next door doing Falstaff, where he sadly fell off the stage. I think that was a big shock for him.  

I was impressed that he was back on stage so quickly after that fall.  

Well, they gave that out, but he didn’t go back to do the job because it was too dangerous. The production should have taken into account the danger of being that far out on the stage. The upside of the accident is that it woke something in Ian. A shock like that is bound to wake something in you. He’s considerable, he’s absolutely considerable. He’s continued on his path and you can’t help but respect him.  

That’s the nice thing about getting older. You’re not beating tambourines anymore. You’re actually looking at people and saying, ‘Oh, well, I disagree. But my God! I respect that person.’  

It’s also great for viewers and audiences to have these different styles of acting. 

Of course. 

What do you make of the critique that actors should refrain from intervening in politics and the like—that they should stay in their lane? 

I think that’s a nonsense. Actors more than anything have an acute sensitivity to politics. If you’ve been in the game, you know that you can’t depend on it. It’s very fleeting.  

It took me a long time to come around to speaking up about things like Scottish independence, which I’m very interested in. I have never liked the name ‘Scottish National Party’, but I love the notion of the independent nature of Scotland.  

But I think that what we really require in these islands is federalism. We need each country to be self-standing on its own. These islands are a community. You can’t just say, ‘Oh, there’s Scotland, forget about the rest.’ 

Actors have a sense of that, of how they belong, and they also have a sense of not belonging. When you don’t belong in any one place, you get a broad view of what things are.  

Oh, you’re drinking Irn Bru!  

[Cue Irn Bru interlude. See audio excerpt.] 

I think that actors are very right to talk about stuff. We also have to talk about politics as it relates to our work. I think some of the practices that are happening to young actors now are despicable. Things like self-taping, where they’ve got to be their own technician and so on. They do these tapes and nobody even responds to them at the end of it. I find that appalling, so I will speak up about that, and I wish some of my fellow actors of my generation would also speak up about it. It’s our responsibility as the old regime of actors to say that what is happening to our young actors is not right. It’s not right that they lose the intimacy of a casting director.  

Some casting directors don’t work that way, of course. There’s a great casting director in Scotland, Orla O’Connor, who doesn’t do that. She believes in the relationship between people. But there’s a lot who do work like that. They used the excuse of Covid, and now they use the excuse of there being too many actors, and I say, that doesn’t matter. Common respect costs nothing.  

Do you think practices like self-taping will affect the quality of acting in future? 

I don’t think so. Actors are survivors, and you’ll get the talent no matter what. It’s just the battering that you get. It’s very wearing after a while, when you’re constantly not getting any response for what you’re doing. Young actors need some kind of response, even if they’re told they’re bad. And usually, they’re not bad, they just don’t fit into a particular project. But you’ve got to tell them, ‘Sorry, you’re not right for this project, and I’ll explain to you why you’re not right for it.’ 

Going back to politics, by advocating federalism, have you moved away from Scottish independence?  

No, not at all. I think federalism is the development of independence. We need to have a vision of how we live within these islands. We’re still a community, we’re still an island, like it or not. The border is a piece of land that’s flexible either way. At one point lots of people in the north of England were keen to be part of Scottish independence.  

I’m still pro-independence. I just think we’ve got to have a broader view of it, and federalism does that. We’re still very class-conscious in this country. I want to move away from that, to have a vision of what we want our country to be.  

We have to think about what an independent spirit means. To me, it means shaking off what we’ve suffered and endured for centuries. And we did it to ourselves, the Scots: we sold our Parliament out from under our feet in 1707 and became part of the United Kingdom. But that made us second-class in a way. For example, why did Prince William only go to see England at the Euros? That’s not very ‘United Kingdom’, is it? I think there’s still that attitude of, ‘Oh, the Scots are so tiresome.’  

When I was young, I couldn’t give a fuck about any of this. Now that I’m getting older, though, I think, ‘Hang on a second.’ In the project that I’m working on right now, my job is to honour the unity and the talent I see. People are delivering amazing work. And I want people to see that this is what Scotland can do. We can create stuff at a very high artistic level. But we don’t get that right now, we get reduced constantly. Our own culture is much older and more consistent than any other culture in these islands, because of the Celts that we all are.  

When I was younger, I was too ambitious. I didn’t care about any of this stuff. I just cared about me, but after a while, you get sick of that. And now, coming up to Scotland again, I see a kind of depression. It’s very difficult to describe but it’s there and it’s to do with permanently being defeated. We don’t need that. We can live through our defeat and learn from it. It shouldn’t make us depressed. It should do the opposite. It should free us more. It should make us think, ‘On, on.’ That’s how we’ve survived for centuries. We haven’t been browbeaten by it. It should make us think that maybe we could actually decide things for ourselves. That’s all I’m asking.  

Keir Starmer is absolutely against the breakup of the Union. It’ll never happen under a Labour government. He’s a stupid man—no, that’s not right, I’ll withdraw that. He’s very intelligent, but he’s very unspontaneous as a man. He’s limited in that sense. He doesn’t understand people’s feelings in Scotland and how necessary it is to nourish them, to make them blossom, to make them bloom.  

We’ve become so thwarted so much of the time, and that makes me sad because it is unnecessary. That’s why I believe in a United Federation, because I do think one of the things we are good at in Scotland is being very kind and considerate to others. All of those riots in England [in August], that would never happen in Scotland. We don’t do that. That’s not who we are. We are inclusive of our brothers and sisters who are Sikh and Islamic and so on. Of course, there will always be the headbangers. There will always be those who are afraid, who are intrinsically racist. You can’t avoid that. That’s something underdeveloped in the human spirit again. But on the whole, we’re really rather good at being inclusive in Scotland.  

For example, there was a meeting in Glasgow recently and what happened was quite stunning. About 30 right-wing people turned up. And against them you had the Indian, Irish Catholic, Scottish Presbyterian, and other communities all coming together. I think that is Scotland’s great gift. We’re good hosts. And that generosity of spirit is what I think could make us the nation that we should become.  

We’re out of time but thank you very much for talking to me. And good luck with your new project. 

My pleasure, it’s been nice to talk to you. Thank you very much. Take care. 

Related reading

‘Nature is super enough, thank you very much!’: interview with Frank Turner, by Daniel James Sharp

Israel’s war on Gaza is a war on the Palestinian people, by Zwan Mahmod

Is the Israel-Palestine conflict fundamentally a nationalist, not a religious, war? by Ralph Leonard

Religion and the Arab-Israeli conflict, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

Bloodshed in Gaza: Islamists, leftist ideologues, and the prospects of a two-state solution, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

Young, radical and morally confused, by Gerfried Ambrosch

Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park

Can Religion Save Humanity? Part One, by Brian Victoria

Can Religion Save Humanity? Part Two: Killing Commies for Christ, by Brian Victoria

The far right and ex-Muslims: ‘The enemy of my enemy is not my friend’, by Sara Al-Ruqaishi

Reflections on the far right riots: a predictable wave of violence, by Khadija Khan

Free speech and the ‘Farage riots’, by Noel Yaxley

The post ‘F*** it, think freely!’ Interview with Brian Cox appeared first on The Freethinker.

Pakistan embodies both modernity and pre-modernity, in that it is a nuclear power with a feudal social system. Throughout Pakistan’s history, feudalism has put political and economic power in the hands of large landowners (essentially feudal lords) and has prevented the rest of society from prospering educationally or economically. Some have argued that feudalism in Pakistan originated with British imperialists, but regardless of how it began, it has played a significant role in our politics and society for hundreds of years, right up to the present. As the analysts Jahanzaib Khan, Humaira Arif Dasti, and Abdul Rasheed Khan have put it, describing the situation since Pakistani independence was achieved in 1947:

The feudal lords, with massive amounts of mortgaged capital, invested massively in industry and the service sector. Pseudo-landlords became pseudo-capitalists. Similarly these feudal lords held high position[s] in [the] army and civil service…[and] almost all Pakistani politicians are feudal [lords]. Almost half of Pakistan’s Gross National Product and the bulk of its export earnings are derived primarily from the agricultural sector controlled by a few thousand feudal families. Armed with a monopoly of economic power, [the feudal lords] easily [took] political power. Thus there are very few efforts to uplift [the] poor…and society is divided into two groups; [the] have[s] and have not[s].

Essentially, feudalism deprives most members of society of their basic rights and keeps them silent in the face of injustice. Feudal lords act like dictators. They always wish to suppress the rights of the people, so that no one can speak against or challenge them.

Education and economic development would challenge feudalism, hence why both are opposed by the system. Education would lead to people challenging irrational social and cultural norms, while economic development would decrease the dependency of the peasants on the lords, inspiring them to decide their future without any fear or pressure.

The Pakistani political and bureaucratic system is largely manipulated by these feudal lords. They have been part of every political system since Pakistan’s founding in 1947 and have strong connections in law enforcement departments and the judiciary. They have effectively bribed the whole system.

Recently, in Sanghar, a local feudal lord cut off the leg of a camel. Why? Just because the innocent animal had entered his field. Such is the arbitrariness and cruelty of the landowners in Pakistan.

That incident reminded me of the time I witnessed the system in action. I remember that, in my village, Chirra Polad, in 2006, a local feudal lord, Seth Abdul Rahman, beat a 19-year-old boy in the middle of the crossroads because the boy had dared to not vote for Rahman’s favoured religious party.

Rahman and 15 men armed with sticks and guns stopped a bus in the middle of the street, entered it, and brutally dragged the boy out. They took him away to be tortured. My father tried to save the boy but was unable to do so.

When the police asked for evidence from the victim of violence, no one apart from my father was willing to testify. When he did so, Rahman threatened him with dire consequences.

Rahman proceeded to disconnect our electricity and support the usurpers of one of the canals on our land. Meanwhile, he threatened people, warning them to not have any economic dealings with us. I was a young boy at this time, but already I had experienced the dangers of standing up to my country’s feudal system.  

Later, in 2016, also in our village, another feudal lord, Malik Kalo Khan, kidnapped and tortured another young boy (Suleiman) who had offended against the system. Khan forced Suleiman’s family to pay large amounts of money and give their teenage daughter’s hand in marriage (to give an unwed girl to an aggrieved party is a Pakistani custom known as Vani—the word is derived from vanay, ‘blood’, as in ‘blood for blood’).

I raised my voice against this and Khan tried to bribe me with 50,000 rupees. I rejected the bribe and publicised the incident on Facebook. Though this helped to resolve the Vani issue, the family was still forced to pay Khan money—this was how the police tried to settle things down. But I was now more determined than ever to use my journalism to oppose this oppression whenever it reared its head.

In 2018, again in my village, a person named Inayat Ullah was accused of having illicit relations with the daughter of a relative of Haji Nawaz Seth, another influential feudal lord, and he was punished for it. According to Ullah, ‘the whole community came together and found me guilty and gave us this punishment.’

Ullah and his entire family, including the women, were made to walk barefoot through the streets of our village with a necklace of shoes on their necks and forced to ask for forgiveness. After hearing this story, I immediately wrote a news article in the Daily Times. Soon after, the police arrested all the people who had decided to punish us so cruelly. Again, though, the feudal lords got off lightly.  

The feudal lords had already long since decided that my father, Malik Nazar Isra, and I, who were the only people consistently opposing them, had to be taught a lesson. We were a nuisance to them, always raising our voices against their oppression and cruelty. Perhaps the lords thought that if our resistance wasn’t crushed, it could pave the way for others to challenge their power—the one thing they fear most.

For example, in December 2013, we heard the news that two houses in the village had been robbed. One of them was Haji Nawaz Seth’s, and many tolas of gold and silver had been stolen. The local feudal lords sent out a team of search dogs. My family got the blame, of course. Even today, the words of the feudal lord Malik Kalu telling the dog owners that ‘the thief is none other than Malik Ramzan Isra’s family’ still ring in my ears. The dogs ran around our house while Seth’s supporters chanted ‘Thief, Malik Ramzan Isra, thief!’.

My father and I were taken away by Seth’s men and kicked and beaten and I was pushed around the streets of the village before Seth handed us over to the police—who tortured us in the lord’s presence.

I was chained upside down and plunged into the cold water of the canal (it was winter). Despite our treatment, we refused to bow. We knew we were innocent. The torture continued until my father couldn’t take it any more and made a deal with Seth to pay seven tolas of gold and 40 tolas of silver.

The consequences were terrible. We were isolated: others in our village were forced to cut off relations with us. We were forced to take out a loan to pay Seth (we are still in debt today). My whole family suffered stress, and my father had a heart attack.

Despite all of this, I remain determined to call out injustice. I have survived various attacks from people who feel threatened by my journalism. For example, I covered the Sharifa Bibi case of October 2017, calling out the men who assaulted this teenage girl and forced her to parade around her village naked.

The stories above are just a few of the thousands of stories that could be told about the barbarism imposed upon Pakistanis every day. They are perfect examples of Pakistan’s rotten feudal system, in which landowners, buttressed by the system, use their power to intimidate and control ordinary people.

Pakistan will never be free until the feudal system is broken. Perhaps by telling these stories and making more people aware of the problem, that day of reckoning will come sooner rather than later.

Related reading

How the persecution of Ahmadis undermines democracy in Pakistan, by Ayaz Brohi

From the streets to social change: examining the evolution of Pakistan’s Aurat March, by Tehreem Azeem

Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape, by Azad

Coerced faith: the battle against forced conversions in Pakistan’s Dalit community, by Shaukat Korai

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

The power of outrage, by Tehreem Azeem

Religion and the decline of freethought in South Asia, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

The post The evils of feudalism in Pakistan: a personal and political narrative appeared first on The Freethinker.

Starmer made several recommendations in a series of Downing Street press conferences to put an end to the rioting, orchestrated by what he called ‘far-right thuggery’. He vowed to punish those involved in criminal damage with lengthy prison terms. Subsequently, he threatened to use facial recognition software to identify the most extreme agitators. The most concerning thing he said was that social media companies should be held more accountable for spreading ‘disinformation’. A dire warning was then issued to everyone who would sow discord by disseminating false information, rumours, or speculation online. 

Of course, false information has circulated widely in recent weeks, both online and off. The majority of the unrest was caused by the blatantly false allegation that the stabbing suspect was a Muslim asylum seeker. Whatever else they indicate, however, the events of August 2024 serve as a terrifying reminder of what happens when the state attempts to control free speech.

The official UK government X account posted  a message on social media warning users to ‘think before you post’, as, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, ‘content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful—it can be illegal.’ If this had come from a friend over a pint in the pub, it wouldn’t have been quite as bad, but this was from an organisation that can put someone in jail for speaking their mind. 

This was the fate of Lee Joseph Dunn, who was sentenced to two months in jail for posting what Cumbria Police called offensive and racially aggravated content online. The 51-year-old Sellafield worker shared three separate images on Facebook. The first featured a group of men who appeared to be Asian and was captioned, ‘Coming to a town near you.’ Another showed Asian-looking men stepping off a boat onto Whitehaven Beach with the caption, ‘When it’s on your turf, then what?’ The final one, which shows men with Asian-like features brandishing knives in front of the Palace of Westminster, was also captioned, ‘Coming to a town near you.’ Offensive? Controversial? Perhaps. However, jail time for words that refrained from inciting violence?

Elon Musk has now become involved. The CEO of X and US tech billionaire took to his own platform. ‘Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?’, he joked, going on to post a Family Guy meme of Peter Griffin about to be executed with the statement, ‘In 2030 for making a Facebook comment the UK government didn’t like.’ He then engaged in a spat with former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, accusing him of being a ‘super, super racist’ who ‘loathes white people.’ Musk is most likely alluding to Humza’s time as the Justice Minister, during which he went on the now-famous ‘white’ tirade, citing a long list of governmental positions along with the colour of the holder’s skin. Remind me about inciting racial hatred again?

The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, directed her words towards the online ‘armchair thugs’ she said were to blame. Cooper asserted during an appearance on Radio 4’s Today programme that social media companies were responsible for the ‘shocking misinformation that has escalated’ the riots.

It is likely that some of the people who were arrested will face charges under the Online Safety Act, which criminalises sending false information. Meanwhile, the 2003 Communications Act—specifically Section 127—makes it illegal to send ‘grossly offensive’ messages. If it is ruled that the defendant was motivated by ‘hate’, the sentence may be increased.

That’s the problem with grey areas in the law. It creates definition creep. How do you define hatred? Some people view shouting as violent, but there are no elaborate hate speech laws that prohibit shouting—unless you include the 61-year-old man who was sentenced to 18 months in jail for chanting ‘Who the fuck is Allah?’ in front of the police during a demonstration outside Downing Street on 31 July. People who often cheer the loudest for censorship run the very real risk of experiencing its authoritarian sting themselves. During the Middlesbrough riots, Hope Not Hate CEO Nick Lowles falsely claimed on Twitter that an acid attack had been committed against a Muslim woman. Now, he has apologised. The lesson? Be careful what you wish for. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but it is possible to loathe the rioters’ actions while simultaneously criticising the government’s response and its effects on civil liberties. Any crackdown on free speech, misinformation, or the enduring abstraction of ‘hatred’ will never be limited to those actively committing violent crimes or causing harm to others. It will be used as a weapon against those who have dissenting opinions or criticise government overreach.

Nigel Farage is a case in point. The leader of Reform UK released an ill-advised video implying that the authorities may be hiding important details about the Southport suspect and his possible intentions from the public. For the record, Farage did not repeat any of the false assertions made online that the suspect was a Muslim asylum seeker. Nevertheless, he was accused by LBC’s James O’Brien of directly inciting the riots. The ‘left-wing Limbaugh’ now refers to them as the ‘Farage riots’. If someone assaulted Nigel Farage after listening to this, should James O’Brien be arrested for incitement to violence? No. That’s the thing about free speech. It’s for everyone, not just the people we agree with. 

By labelling everyone as far-right, you run the risk of associating all right-of-centre journalists, populist politicians, and people with moderately centrist viewpoints with extremists and racists. ‘Far-right narratives’ were being mainstreamed after the Southport tragedy, according to the anti-racism organisation Hope Not Hate. How do you define ‘far-right’? According to Hope Not Hate, one defining feature of being far right is believing that multiculturalism isn’t working in the U.K. That opinion, by the way, is a mainstream, majority view, according to Hope Not Hate’s own research.

Some have demanded strong restrictions on so-called ‘Islamophobia’, using the riots as a pretext. The Daily Mail, according to suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana, has ‘fanned the flames of hate and normalised Islamophobic and anti-migrant rhetoric.’ Labour also adopted the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ divisive definition of Islamophobia while they were in opposition, promising to enact it into law if they were elected. This would effectively make criticising Islam, and potentially even critiquing Islamist terrorism, illegal. It would be a de facto Islamic blasphemy law. When London Mayor Sadiq Khan met with Starmer to celebrate Eid last month, he urged him to do more to tackle Islamophobia. The prime minister agreed. ‘There’s certainly stuff online which I think needs tackling more robustly than it is at the moment,’ he said. 

The dangers of this sort of creeping censorship have been pointed out by respected journalists for years. In 2009, for instance, Christopher Hitchens gave a speech that was remarkably prescient:

The next thing [is] you’ll be told you can’t complain because you’re Islamophobic. The term is already being introduced into the culture as if it was an accusation of race hatred, for example, or bigotry, whereas it’s only the objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion.

While we condemn the rioters, prosecute the offenders, and restore the safety and security of the affected communities, we also need to have a serious conversation about why there was such widespread resentment in the first place and the best ways to address people’s legitimate complaints. The breakdown in the social cohesion and coexistence of distinct ethnic communities is the root cause of this communal violence. In the past two years alone, over a million legal immigrants have arrived in Britain each year, most of them from non-European countries. This has resulted in major demographic changes. Between 2001 and 2021, for example, white ethnic Brits decreased as a proportion of the population by 13.1%—from 87.5% to 74.4%.  

Multiculturalism has failed. This is not a controversial statement. Numerous problems have arisen as a result of the mass immigration of individuals who reject Western liberal democracy and our shared, innate sense of civic virtues. Even though white Britons commit many serious crimes, the sharp rise in sectarian violence, interethnic conflicts on the streets of Leicester, the child grooming gang scandal, and the competition for scarce resources have caused many to question the state’s immigration policies. Laws protecting minorities from hate speech and increased censorship only serve to reinforce the perception that white British people are not being heard. 

While the media has pushed the narrative that we are a nation beset with racists and fascists, it is the law-abiding majority who have legitimate reason to feel frustrated—as evidenced by the protestors who yelled ‘save our kids’. If we don’t address some serious questions about immigration, violence, and why the police appear to treat some people from minority backgrounds differently, these riots will happen again and again. To combat this, we need more, not less speech. 

Related reading

The far right and ex-Muslims: ‘The enemy of my enemy is not my friend’, by Sara Al-Ruqaishi

Reflections on the far right riots: a predictable wave of violence, by Khadija Khan

Featured image: Laurie Noble. CC BY 3.0.

The post Free speech and the ‘Farage riots’ appeared first on The Freethinker.

The racial violence that erupted on the streets of the UK in early August was tragic. Ordinary British folks of all colours and creeds who have coexisted peacefully for so long suddenly feel threatened and exposed.

The false information that was spread on social media following the horrific mass stabbing of children in Southport at the end of July was reportedly the main factor contributing to the ongoing riots. The British people were left incensed by the violence, and horror engulfed the whole country.

In order to incite anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments, bad-faith actors disseminated a flood of lies about the Southport incident on social media, including the false assertion that the suspected assailant was an immigrant with a Muslim background.

In recent years, toxicity has spread like wildfire online, so it is unsurprising that some have pointed to social media as the cause of the violent scenes witnessed by Britain in August. But there is another reason why the far right was able to take advantage of the situation so easily: mainstream liberal silence on issues of immigration and integration.

With Western liberals making excuses for Muslim zealots and the authorities allowing fringe Islamist elements to dominate Muslim communities, it was inevitable that controversial and contentious figures like Tommy Robinson would fill the vacuum. Over-sensitive political correctness gives the likes of Robinson room in which to stir up hatred. Robinson’s long history of capitalising on people’s worries and insecurities related to legitimate issues around immigration and integration is enough evidence of that—and now we have seen what mainstream silence leads to.

But even if the ineptitude of the authorities and the negligence of the liberals are at least part of the explanation for these riots, they are no excuse for them. Unfortunately, the far right extremists who have set fire to hotels hosting asylum seekers, destroyed public buildings, thrown items at law enforcement personnel, and smashed up police vehicles are now being pampered by another brand of apologists, their actions explained away as the result of legitimate grievances. Sound familiar?

People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has long criticised the Western left for infantilising fundamentalist Muslims and validating their grievances, seem to dismiss the racial hate that has been encouraged on X and which contributed to the riots. As Hirsi Ali has put it, ‘Elon [Musk, owner of X] has given all those voiceless victims a voice and a platform to draw the attention of the negligent politicians and their sprawling bureaucracies.’

Has she not learnt how Islamists were and are empowered by the left’s inability to denounce religious fundamentalism? Is it prudent to adopt the same lame excuses in order to wave away the violent, racist, and hostile mob attacks which occurred all around the UK? Is it really so difficult to be consistent in one’s opposition to fanaticism and violence?

Another lamentable aspect of our current predicament is the failure of the torchbearers of inclusivity and justice themselves, who, whether unwittingly or deliberately, push people into toxic forms of politics. Many people who have long been supportive of liberal values feel compelled to abandon them due to the extreme ‘woke’ beliefs that have been embedded in much of the left. The unrelenting demands for conformity and draconian cancel culture of the ‘woke’ left have pushed people towards even more divisive ideologies.

Conspicuously, Tommy Robinson and his ilk are not capable of providing a balanced critique of immigration and the Islamist menace, which continues to be the UK’s greatest security risk. They are part of the polarising grievance industry and behave like cheap provocateurs. They propagate anxieties and insecurities with the intention of causing animosity and rifts. They have no intention of providing fair and just solutions to our many problems.

Far-right extremists who committed violence should be brought to justice without any delay. But it does need to be said that not all of the people at the protests were violent ‘far-right thugs’ (Keir Starmer’s words). Many of them turned up with their families and desired only to be heard. They did not necessarily share Robinson’s repulsive ideology. Dismissing all concerns about immigration and painting everyone who took part in protests as thugs is not the way forward. In fact, it will only make things worse. If people are treated with disregard and contempt for their legitimate concerns about immigration, there is every possibility that eventually they will become far-right thugs. As MI5 puts it:

[T]he extreme right-wing terrorism landscape has evolved away from structured groups towards a more diffuse threat where individuals form loose networks, often online. The ideologies and grievance narratives are varied, wide-ranging, and often overlapping.

The former government’s social cohesion adviser, Sara Khan, has stated that previous administrations ‘have astonishingly failed to address these trends, and they’ve taken instead, in my view, approaches that have actually been counterproductive’.

In short: the wave of violence and bigotry in August was all too predictable. Sadly, Starmer seems set on continuing to turn a blind eye to people’s legitimate concerns, which will only give more opportunities to the far right to manipulate people and pursue their own, horrific ends.

It is time to reflect and reaffirm that it is possible to criticise Islam without endorsing prejudice against Muslims and that it is reasonable to discuss the issues around immigration and integration without being bigoted. It is also necessary to defend secular democratic values by opposing the absolutism of the liberal fringe and the xenophobia of the far right. If the peaceful coexistence that has characterised British cultural diversity at its best is to survive, we urgently need to stop apologising for the far right and Islamism. If we fail to heed the lessons of August 2024, we may end up with a country where unabating violence and hatred become, quite simply, the way of life.

Related reading

The far right and ex-Muslims: ‘The enemy of my enemy is not my friend’, by Sara Al-Ruqaishi

The post Reflections on the far right riots: a predictable wave of violence appeared first on The Freethinker.

Islam’s hostility to human values ​​has long been the main reason why many of its followers have left it to become atheists. But, amid the far-right riots carried out in Britain earlier this month, it seems that some ex-Muslims have forgotten the motivation that drove them to become apostates in the first place. Do we oppose Islam out of sheer, mindless hatred, or do we hate it because it is hostile to humanity?

Some ex-Muslim atheists have shown their support for far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and have encouraged anti-Muslim bigotry. In addition to that, they have promoted the violence perpetrated by the far right across the UK. This support is often based on the argument that the ‘demonstrations’ only target Muslims.

This position is based on misinformation. As we have seen, the riots went beyond targeting Muslims to include refugees and people of colour more generally, those who work in refugee support centres, and the police. But even if this position was accurate, it would still be bigoted and inhumane in itself.

‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which many if not most ex-Muslim atheists support as an alternative to Sharia law, begins thus: ‘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.’ The word ‘dignity’ is placed before the word ‘rights’ for a logical reason: human dignity serves as the basis for human rights. The concept of dignity recognises that all human beings have a special value that is inherent in themselves—not acquired—and therefore deserving of respect, without exception, simply because they are human beings.  In other words, you cannot talk about human rights if these rights are limited to certain people and denied to others.

To support bigotry against Muslims is to strip Muslims of their human dignity, which means that Muslims will not enjoy the same rights as everyone else. And this is exactly what you support when you talk about the right of white English people to ‘security of person’ while supporting riots that are trying to take away the right of Muslims to the same. In supporting the far right, these ex-Muslims show themselves to be non-secular, non-humanist atheists.

The far right and Islamism: two sides of the same coin

The far right bases its hatred of others on a sense of superiority that has no scientific basis. They believe that being white and/or Christian makes them inherently better than everyone else. Isn’t this exactly the same justification Islamists use for persecuting ex-Muslims and others who don’t fit into their narrow view of the world? Islamists see themselves and their worldview as superior and unchallengeable, and this is the basis on which they persecute women, gays, atheists, non-Muslims, and secular Muslims. The far right does exactly the same: they target those who are not white and/or Christian because they believe that they alone are worthy of respect.

Far-right ideology is not a cure for Islamism. Rather, it feeds it. When a far-right extremist calls for bigotry against Muslims, he/she encourages Islamists to respond with their own bigotry—as we witnessed in Birmingham on the night of 5 August. Supporting the far right to oppose Islamism feeds an endless cycle of bigotry and terrorism. It is unfortunate that some of us ex-Muslims contribute to this cycle, which only strengthens the very people, whether Islamist or far-right, who seek to destroy us.

A better approach: secular alliance against extremism

The cure for reactionary Islamism is not through an alliance with the reactionary far right built on a shared fanatical bigotry against ‘Muslims’, but through an alliance between secular atheists and secular Muslims. This would be a useful and humane alliance built on the values ​​advocated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: dignity, freedom, and rejection of extremism.

As ex-Muslim atheists seeking to build more humane societies, we must work to build bridges of understanding and coexistence between all religious and ethnic groups. We must unequivocally reject any form of fanaticism and violence, whether it comes from Islamists, far-right extremists, or anyone else. Taking a stand against far-right extremism and being a voice for justice and equality reflects our principle of rejecting extremism. Those who stood with the rioters showed that their problem is not with extremism as such but with Muslim extremism only.

For a better world free from hatred

Given that a large proportion of us ex-Muslims are refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, it is shameful that some of us are complicit in the attempted destruction of the democracies in which persecuted people like us seek refuge. Promoting far-right ideology threatens refugees like us. Moreover, far-right ideas are categorically opposed to the fundamental democratic ideals ​​of freedom, equality, and justice—the very values ​​that we as ex-Muslims felt the lack of in our countries of origin, leading us to flee by air or sea to places which stood up for those values. In other words, allying ourselves with extremists, some of whom call for the return of a ‘white and Christian’ England, undermines our own rights and interests as atheists in the UK.

The post The far right and ex-Muslims: ‘The enemy of my enemy is not my friend’ appeared first on The Freethinker.

Myth? Legend? Folklore? History? Fiction? This is The Story of Russia, as the title of Orlando Figes’s 2022 book puts it.

Every nation, every country, and, indeed, every empire has a founding myth: some event or figure that is meant to embody the values and origins of the state and unify the people with an overarching narrative of where they came from and where they are going. Figes shows, however, that Russia is a peculiar exception to this norm. For many reasons, when it comes to Russia’s history and origins, there is no true consensus or understanding. Rather, Russia’s history and origins are so deeply intertwined with myths, narratives, legends, politics, folklore, and religion that you must first be willing to dive deeply into all these intricate components and then sift through them to discover even a morsel of truth.

As Figes demonstrates in his work, despotism is one constant truth of Russia over 800 years, from the authoritarianism of Kievan Rus’ (the progenitor of modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus) to Putinism. The systems and titles may have changed several times, but the brutal and violent methods of securing and maintaining centralised power in Russia have remained largely unaltered—because, circularly, the belief that Russia can only be ruled by brutality and violence has remained largely unaltered as well.

Russian industrialisation did not even begin until the late 19^th century, partially because of Russia’s reliance on serf labour. Because serfs had no social or economic mobility, and even their physical mobility was restricted to the confines of their village, there was no space for innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs who could revolutionise the system. The natural emergence of capitalism, inextricably connected to industrialisation (like an axle to a wheel), was impossible for a long time in Russia. In Russia, unlike the rest of Europe, the state, in the form of the Tsar, was the sole financier of industrialisation.

During the first half of the 18^th century, the skill of history writing was still emerging in Russia. A German scholar named Gerhard Friedrich Müller outraged the Russian academics at the newly established St Petersburg Academy of Sciences by daring to conclude, based on his research of the Primary Chronicle, that Russia’s origins could be traced back to the Vikings. To say that Scandinavians created Russia was not something to be lightly asserted at a time when Russia had just emerged from victory in one of its many wars with Sweden!

Müller was accused by Mikhail Lomonosov, his rival in the academy, of degrading the Slavs by presenting them as savages who couldn’t organise their state without outside help. The Russians, according to Lomonosov, were not Vikings, but Baltic Slavs, descendants of the Iranian Roxolani people, whose history dates back into the mists of antiquity.

Another fascinating aspect of Russian history that Figes delves into is the notion of Moscow as the ‘Third Rome’, the bearer of the Orthodox Christian flame after the fall of the ‘Second Rome’, Byzantium. This succession—or natural inheritance, as it is viewed by many Russians—means that Russia has a God-given mission in the world, a view that derives in part from the medieval theology it inherited from the Byzantines. The idea that the West is in a state of degeneration and collapse and that Russia is a superior civilisation thanks to its unbending devotion to Orthodoxy is an idea that has recurred again and again in Russian history. Holy Russia, in short, is the true source of humanity’s salvation. This view of Russia as saviour fundamentally influenced both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The sacralisation of power was deeply linked to this because it portrayed the Tsar (or the Party) as the direct manifestation of God’s will on Earth (or the embodiment of the dialectic of history).

This messianic streak is still apparent. Putin’s ongoing war with Ukraine can be understood through this framework: divine right places Putin above human laws, human rights, and earthly realities, and Ukraine, due to its exposure to the degenerate societies of the West, is in need of cleansing by holy war.

Figes skilfully examines the reasons behind Russia’s failure to establish a democratic government over the centuries (contrast with Ukraine) by compellingly illustrating how democratic reforms were consistently hindered by pivotal historical events. These events include the impact of the French Revolution during Catherine the Great’s reign, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia during Alexander I’s rule, the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 (which halted his transformative reforms), the suppression of democratic ideals by the Bolsheviks after the 1917 revolution, and the perpetuation of autocratic tendencies following the fall of the Soviet Union. While Western thinkers have debated, discussed, and theorised about the abstract notions of the state and the people, the role of religion, and the role and structure of the state for hundreds of years, there has been no similar wide-ranging, long-term enquiry in Russia.

Yet another fascinating and critical topic explored in The Story of Russia is Russia’s eastward expansion. As Figes notes, between 1500 and 1917, the territories controlled by the Russian state grew, on average, by a staggering 1,300 square kilometres per day. This expansion, of course, was not merely of land; it also included expansion of control over the indigenous populations the Russians encountered. Russian expansion was, in essence, Russian colonialism. However, unlike in many Western countries, Russia has not reflected on or reckoned with its colonial past. Russian expansion is viewed as a kind of ‘self-discovery’—or, as Figes describes it, as the story of a country colonising itself.

It is certainly not shocking that no such reckoning has occurred or even begun in Russia given that the official narrative on all matters Russian has been crafted by authoritarian regimes, from the Tsars and the Soviets to Putin. But where, then, is the international community? Where are the protests against the bloody past, so common in the West? Where is the holding to account for the cultural genocide, forced assimilation, brutal treatment, and forced imprisonment of indigenous peoples in and along the eastern portion of Eurasia?

Perhaps the only apt comparison is that of the plight of the Uyghur Muslims, a Turkic-speaking ethnic group who live in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, China. Over one million Uyghur Muslims have been imprisoned by the Chinese government since 2017, and those not imprisoned are subjected to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labour, and forced sterilisation. The outcry, protests, and condemnation from the international community on this issue have also been lacking, albeit not totally absent. Similarly, but to a worse extent, the silence on the ongoing plight of the indigenous peoples of Russia is stunning.

Figes’s assessment of the Putin regime’s endorsement of the doctrine called the ‘Russian World’ is particularly valuable. According to this doctrine, Russia is a civilisation characterised by its spiritual values, in contrast to what is perceived as the liberalism and materialism of the West. The ‘Russian World’ includes not merely Russia, but also Ukraine and Belarus, a view supported by Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who believes that all Orthodox believers, whether in Russia, Ukraine, or Belarus, have a common origin and deep connection stemming from the coming of Christianity to Kievan Rus’ in 988. Kirill’s shocking inability to denounce Russia’s war on—not to mention his declaration of holy war against—Ukraine is a direct consequence of this view of history.

Among the many important themes discussed by Figes, one stands out to me as a necessary reminder of the malign uses to which prejudiced historical narratives can be put. That is, in true Orwellian fashion, control over how the past is understood grants control over the present and the future. The current unnecessary and unprovoked war with Ukraine is the result of Russia being detached from its history and at the mercy of an ever-changing narrative that benefits the ruling class and buttresses that class’s hold on power. This war is not just a crime against Ukraine, but also one against the best of Russia, whose literature and art have enriched Europe for centuries, and the people of Russia, whose desire for liberty has, tragically, never been fully realised. This war, in all its aspects, will only continue until and unless Russia is free to understand its own history—and learn from it.

Related reading

A view from Kyiv: Ordinary life during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, interview by Emma Park

Can the ‘New Theists’ save the West? by Matt Johnson

Against the ‘New Theism’, by Daniel James Sharp

What has Christianity to do with Western values? by Nick Cohen

Two types of ‘assimilation’: the US and China, by Grayson Slover

The post Russian history, Russian myths: review of ‘The Story of Russia’ by Orlando Figes appeared first on The Freethinker.

Introduction

Jared Huffman is the Democratic representative for California’s 2nd congressional district and the only open non-believer in the US Congress. He is also at the forefront of the fight against Christian nationalism in America. He helped found the Congressional Freethought Caucus and the Stop Project 2025 Task Force. Andrew L. Seidel, constitutional attorney and author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American and American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom (and Freethinker contributor) had this to say about Huffman:

Rep. Jared Huffman is unafraid to publicly declare his belief in church-state separation and his lack of religion. That fearlessness is something we rarely see in American politicians, and it gives me hope for our future. There is no more stalwart defender of the separation of church and state than Rep. Huffman.

I recently spoke with Huffman over Zoom about his career and his opposition to the theocratic agenda of a future Donald Trump administration. Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.

Interview

Daniel James Sharp: You are the only open non-believer in Congress. Could you tell us about that, and your personal background regarding religion?

Representative Jared Huffman: I had no intention of being known as the only open non-believer in Congress when I got elected back in 2012. I have been without religion for most of my adult life and in recent years came to sort of loosely identify as a humanist. But that was something I largely kept to myself. I had never been asked about it in politics. I’d spent twelve years in local government and six years in the California State Assembly and I could not imagine that it would ever come to be something I was known for in Congress.

But what I learned pretty early on is that there are all of these publications that want to know about the religious identification of people when they get to Congress. The Pew Research Center does this ongoing study about religiosity in Congress and there are all of these Capitol Hill publications that do surveys and ask you to choose your religious label. For the first few years, I essentially declined to answer those questions. I thought it was none of anyone’s business.

That changed when Donald Trump won the 2016 election and brought into government a growing number of strident Christian nationalists and an agenda that troubled me quite a bit and which I saw as deeply theocratic. I decided that this was something I needed to push back on.

However, it was hard to do that when I was keeping a little secret about my own religious identity, so I came out publicly as a humanist, making me the only member out of 535 in the House of Representatives and the Senate who openly acknowledges not having a God belief.

Do you think there are many other nonbelievers in Congress?

I know there are many more, but I’m the only one dumb enough to say it publicly!

Has coming out affected you politically?

I think that’s been an interesting part of the story. Conventional wisdom holds that you should never do that. And even in some of our more recent polls, atheists tend to rank lower than just about every other category in terms of the type of person Americans would vote for. So there was a lot of nervousness among my staff and from a lot of my friends and supporters when I came out in the fall of 2017.

But the backlash never came, and, if anything, I think my constituents appreciated me just being honest about what my moral framework was. I think they see an awful lot of hypocrisy in politics, a lot of fakers and people pretending to be religious, including Donald Trump, and I found that being honest about these things is actually pretty beneficial politically, and it also just feels more authentic, personally speaking.

Since Trump was elected in 2016, you have become very involved in resisting theocratic tendencies in government. You helped to found the Congressional Freethought Caucus in 2018, for example. Could you tell us how that came about?

Yes, that came next, after the Washington Post wrote a story about me coming out as a humanist. I think it was the next day after that piece was published that my colleague, Jamie Raskin, came to me on the House floor and said, ‘Hey, I think that’s great what you did, and I share the same concerns you have about the encroachment of religion into our government and our policies, we should think about some sort of a coalition to work on these secular issues.’ Conversations like that led pretty quickly to the creation of this new Congressional Freethought Caucus that we launched a few months later.

And what does the caucus do?

We support public policy based on facts and reason and science. We fiercely defend the separation of Church and State. We defend the rights of religious minorities, including the non-religious, against discrimination and stigmatization in the United States and worldwide. And we try to provide a safe place for members of Congress who want to openly discuss these matters of religious freedom without the constraints our political system has traditionally imposed.

It seems important to note that the caucus is formed of people from all different religious backgrounds. It’s not an atheist caucus.

Yes, it’s a mix, and it’s a mix that looks like the American people, which is different from Congress itself as a whole. The American people are getting less religious all the time and they are getting more religiously diverse, but Congress is stuck in a religious profile from the 1950s.

Do you think these changing demographics are part of the reason why there is this renewed Christian nationalist push?

I do. Religious fundamentalists correctly sense that their power and privilege are waning and that has caused them to become more desperate and extreme in their politics.

What is Project 2025?

Project 2025 is an extreme takeover plan for a second Trump presidency to quickly strip away many of the checks and balances in our democracy to amass unprecedented presidential power and use it to impose an extreme social order. It’s a plan to take total control over not just our government but also many of our individual freedoms. And the Christian nationalist agenda is at the heart of it.

Do you believe Trump’s statements distancing himself from Project 2025?

No, they are deeply unbelievable and implausible. Trump is inextricably intertwined with Project 2025 and until very recently both Trump’s inner circle and the Heritage Foundation, who published the plan, were openly boasting about the closeness of that connection. As Americans have come to learn more about Project 2025 and what it would do to their lives, it has become politically toxic to be associated with it, and that’s why you see these sudden attempts by Trump and his team to distance themselves from it.

How did people become more aware of it? It flew under the radar for quite a while.

Indeed, it flew under the radar for over a year. But our Freethought Caucus and others in Congress founded the Stop Project 2025 Task Force two months ago and, thanks to our efforts and the efforts of many others in the media and outside advocacy groups, more people have come to know about Project 2025 and the threat it poses to our democracy. Project 2025 went from being an obscure thing very few had heard about to, just a couple of weeks ago, surpassing Taylor Swift as the most talked about thing on the internet.

Quite an achievement! So, how exactly do you stop Project 2025?

It starts by understanding it, by reading the 920-page document that they arrogantly published and proclaimed as their presidential transition plan. That document lays out in great detail exactly what they intend to do. Our task force has been doing a deep dive into that, working with several dozen outside groups and leading experts to understand what some of these seemingly innocuous things they’re proposing actually mean in real life.

They hide beyond technical terms like ‘Schedule F civil service reform’ and we have been able to understand and help spotlight that what that really means is a mass purge of the entire federal workforce, rooting out anyone who has ever shown sympathy for Democratic politics, anyone who has ever been part of a diversity, equity, and inclusion programme, anyone who has worked on climate science—or anyone else who has offended the sensibilities of MAGA Republican extremists. They want to reclassify these employees and summarily fire them. This would affect well over 50,000 people throughout the federal workforce.

And then, as creepy as that already is, these people would be replaced by a cadre of trained and vetted Trump loyalists who are already maintained in a database housed by the Heritage Foundation. Essentially, they plan to repopulate the federal workforce with their own political operatives. This is not self-evident when you read the technical stuff in Project 2025, but that is exactly what their plan entails.

Can you give another example of their plans?

Yes. There are several ways in which they plan to impose their rigid social order. One of these is to dust off old morality codes from the 1870s using a dormant piece of legislation called the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act criminalises things that can be seen as obscene or profane and one of the things it criminalised back in the 1870s was anything that could terminate a pregnancy. Using this dormant legislation, which many believe is unconstitutional, Project 2025 are proposing what would amount to a nationwide ban on abortion, strict nationwide restrictions on contraception, and the criminalisation of in vitro fertilisation—very extreme and dystopic things.

It seems that the best way to stop Project 2025 is to stop Trump from being elected in November.

That’s the best way. That’s the most definitive way. But even if we beat Trump in this election, now that we have seen the Project 2025 playbook, we are going to have to build some policy firewalls against their plans in the future. The threat won’t go away. We need to build our defences against this kind of extreme takeover of government. But that is going to be much harder to do if Donald Trump is in the White House and his sworn loyalists are populating the entire federal workforce and they have broken down all of the checks and balances that stopped Trump’s worst impulses in his first presidency.

In essence, that’s what Project 2025 is: a plan to remove the obstacles that prevented Trump from doing many of the things he wanted to do or tried to do the first time around and to allow him to go even further.

Do you have a ‘doomsday scenario’ plan in the event of a Trump victory?

Yes, but it’s less than ideal. It relies on a lot of legal challenges in a legal system that has been well-populated by Trump loyalists. It relies on mobilising public opinion in a system where democracy and the democratic levers of power will not mean as much, because, frankly, Project 2025 is about accelerating the demise of a functioning democracy. Of course, there is no scenario under which we would just let all of this bad stuff happen without putting up a fight, but the tools that we would have to stop Project 2025 would be much less reliable if Trump wins.

How would the implementation of Project 2025 affect the rest of the world? What would be the consequences for America’s friends and allies?

I think that’s an important question for your readers. There’s no doubt that Project 2025 is hostile to the rules-based international order and our alliances that have kept Europe mostly free of war for the past half a century and more. It is hostile to globalism, as they refer to it, meaning free trade and the kind of trade relationships that we have with the European Union and many others around the world. It is hostile to confronting the climate crisis and even to acknowledging climate science. All of these are things that I’m sure folks in Scotland and the UK and throughout Europe would be deeply concerned by.

And there’s no doubt that Project 2025 is fundamentally sympathetic to strongman authoritarian regimes. In fact, it was inspired by Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The folks at the Heritage Foundation took a little trip to Hungary to learn about how Orbán had advanced all of these conservative, nationalist, authoritarian policies. Orbán has influenced the American right wing in a big way. He’s a bit of a rock star in Donald Trump’s world.

And so is Vladimir Putin, to an extent.

Indeed.

What are the chances of beating Trump in the election, now that Kamala Harris is the Democratic candidate?

A heck of a lot better than they were two or three weeks ago. My hope is that America is about to do what France did very recently. The French stared into the abyss of a right-wing authoritarian government and they realised what a scary and terrible prospect that was. In a matter of weeks, they united around a broad alliance to keep the far right out of power, and they succeeded. I think we are seeing a similar realisation and pivot from the American people. At least, I hope that is what’s happening. It certainly feels that way to me.

Looking in from the outside as an admirer of America, one thing I would like to see more of from the Democrats in particular is the patriotic case for secularism. The Christian nationalists and their ilk have claimed the mantle of patriotism, but their ideals are very far from the ideals America was founded on.

I think that’s a great point. And I know that you have worked with Andrew L. Seidel and others who are doing heroic work to recapture secular thought as part of what it means to be a patriotic American. I’m certainly all in for that. But the truth is that, though we did an incredible thing by separating Church and State in our Constitution, we have never done a great job of upholding that ideal. We have allowed Christian privilege and Christian power to influence our government for a long, long time, and in some ways what we’re struggling with now is a reckoning between the written law and the desperate attempts of Christian nationalists to hang on to their power and the founding premise of separating Church and State.

I suppose in some ways that’s the story of America. The battle between competing visions of America and trying to live up to those founding ideals.

Yes, that’s true. And the other thing that’s going on, I think, is that Christianity itself is in many respects changing around the world. I’ve spoken to secularists in Europe, in Scotland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and it does seem that there is a strain of fundamentalist Christianity that has become more pronounced in recent years, a strain that is hyper-masculine, focused on power, and militaristic. The old ‘love thy neighbour’ Christianity is falling out of favour. People are fleeing traditional Christian denominations and identifying with these extreme, fundamentalist versions of Christianity. And they even mock what they see as soft Christianity. There’s a violence to these strains, which we saw with the January 6th insurrection in a big way.

So there is a lot happening, and it is more than just a fight between secularists and religionists. It’s also an internal struggle within Christianity itself over some pretty core values.

Going back to your point about the influence of Orbán, it seems to me that it also works the other way around. You have American fundamentalists pouring money into right-wing groups in Europe and funding fanatics in Israel and Uganda. So what can people outside of the US do to help in the fight against American fundamentalism?

It’s hard to compete with the mountains of dark money spread around the world by billionaire Christian nationalists, but we’re not powerless. The good news is that most people don’t really want to live in an authoritarian theocracy. I think lifting up education and science and civil society around the world is essential, as is promoting the idea of keeping religion out of government, of letting people make their own private religious choices without being able to impose their morality codes on everyone else. It’s a huge challenge, but I welcome the influence of secularists in Europe and elsewhere to try to counterbalance this wrong-headed phenomenon that, unfortunately, is emanating from my country.

That seems like a good place to finish. Good luck in the fight, and in November.

I appreciate that very much. I hope to talk to you again after we have saved our democracy.

Related reading

Donald Trump, political violence, and the future of America, by Daniel James Sharp

Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, by Jonathan Church

Can the ‘New Theists’ save the West? by Matt Johnson

Against the ‘New Theism’, by Daniel James Sharp

A reading list against the ‘New Theism’ (and an offer to debate), by Daniel James Sharp

The post ‘Project 2025 is about accelerating the demise of a functioning democracy’: interview with US Representative Jared Huffman appeared first on The Freethinker.

The seventeenth century did not get off to a great start in Europe. Religious conflict still simmered, and in 1618, the continent became embroiled in the bloodiest and most destructive war it would suffer before the two World Wars. The Netherlands was fighting for its independence. In Britain, the dispute between King and Parliament led to wars costing hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1640s and 1650s. Scientific progress faced massive barriers. Galileo was condemned by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 for arguing that the Earth orbited the Sun and not the reverse, as Aristotle and generations of his followers had maintained. Across the continent, people remained poor, ignorant, oppressed, and victims of seemingly continuous violence.

Yet, by the end of the century, the religious wars were over, Europe had modern astronomy and physics, the Dutch had created the corporation and the stock exchange, England had established parliamentary government, and books calling for freedom of religion were openly being published and distributed. ‘In 1700 the mental outlook of educated men was completely modern; in 1600, except among a very few, it was largely medieval,’ wrote Bertrand Russell in his A History of Western Philosophy.

This shift in mindset, from the medieval to the modern, is the subject of Paul Strathern’s Dark Brilliance: The Age of Reason From Descartes to Peter the Great. Strathern covers the major figures and events of the era, painting a sweeping picture of the century and the monumental changes it brought to intellectual and cultural life in Europe. Dark Brilliance has remarkable breadth, touching on every field of knowledge from calculus to cooking. It includes the microscope and telescope, probability and statistics, gravity and motion, the Golden Age in the Netherlands and the Glorious Revolution in Britain. We meet—as we expect—figures such as Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, and Newton. But Strathern pays far more attention to culture and the arts than most other writers on the Enlightenment. He also breaks down the contrast between reason and unreason running through the seventeenth century; this is the ‘Dark’ of the book’s title.

The Culture of Enlightenment

As he promises in the subtitle, Strathern begins Dark Brilliance with René Descartes, as he is developing his new philosophy in a bucolic winter scene in a Bavarian village. From Descartes, he makes an unexpected jump to the Italian painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610). Caravaggio would not normally feature in a book on the Age of Reason. He lived in Italy, which had been the unquestioned centre of Europe during the Renaissance but was falling into the shadows of the Netherlands and France in the seventeenth century. For all their wealth and splendour, Rome and Florence never became centres of the Enlightenment in the way that Paris, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, or London did. Not only that, Caravaggio died before the Age of Reason really began.

Still, Strathern argues that Caravaggio’s painting was a leap forward from the past, just like the works of the Enlightenment thinkers. His painting showed more depth, photorealism, and understanding of scientific topics such as anatomy and optics than the Italian Renaissance masters who preceded him. And they, in turn, painted far more lifelike scenes than medieval European artists. Like the Renaissance artists, Caravaggio drew on classical as well as Biblical inspiration, although he painted with more drama and energy. Strathern highlights, in particular, Caravaggio’s Judith Beheading Holofernes, where he painted a scene from the Bible, a conventional subject, but presented it in a way that was unconventionally violent, visceral, and shocking. Compare the painting with medieval European art, which was often without passion; even people suffering violent deaths can look only bored or vaguely annoyed.

This focus on culture is an original approach, but one which makes sense. Culture reflects society, and we can see the ideas of the Enlightenment reflected in the art of the Baroque artists. But it has limitations, and centres of culture and art were not always centres of learning, science, philosophy, or law. There was no Florentine Newton or Milanese Spinoza.

The splendour of the court of Louis XIV made France the cultural centre of Europe—even today fields like cooking and fashion are speckled with French words and phrases—but the French Enlightenment only really took off after the Sun King’s death. Strathern could have perhaps explored this further.  

Reason and Unreason

The other theme of Dark Brilliance is, as the title itself illustrates, the paradoxes of the Enlightenment. To Strathern, the seventeenth century was the Age of Reason and Unreason. As he points out in the introduction, the achievements of the Enlightenment ‘took place against a background of extreme political turbulence and irrational behaviour on a continental scale,’ from frenzied persecutions of supposed witches to the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade.

The developers of the telescope and the microscope were achieving steadily higher levels of magnification and bringing more and more of the hidden universe into view even as Catholics and Protestants killed each other by the tens of thousands. In the first chapter of Dark Brilliance, René Descartes invents his new philosophy while in the winter quarters of the Bavarian army during the Thirty Years War. The metastatic growth of the slave trade provides another example of how the irrational and inhumane could easily grow alongside the ideals of the Enlightenment. ‘…[I]n the Age of Reason, it was slavery that produced the capital which led to the progress of western European civilization, laying the foundations upon which its empires were built,’ Strathern writes. ‘At the same time, it also prompted a few rare spirits such as Montaigne to recognize the contagious barbarity of all who took part in it—to say nothing of the absurdity of its claims regarding racial superiority’. Man’s expanding knowledge did not seem to lessen his brutality—at least not yet.

The greatest paradox of the Enlightenment was, arguably, the French Revolution itself, which led to mass killing, the establishment of a dictatorship, and a new ‘rational’ religion in the name of Enlightenment values and freeing the people of France from the oppression of monarchy, aristocratic privilege, and a corrupt and reactionary Church. As he finishes his account at the start of the eighteenth century, Strathern doesn’t cover the French Revolution, although the theme of paradox runs through the book.

Conclusions

Why should we care about the Enlightenment? Because we live in a world shaped by it, and while we enjoy its benefits, we should also be aware (and beware) of its lessons. At the start of Dark Brilliance, Strathern asks if human progress will end up destroying the civilisation it helped to create. We face a range of threats, including climate change, enabled by the scientific progress and material wealth which has made our lives so much better. At the end of the book, he has not yet answered his own question, although he concludes that ‘paradoxically, the answer would appear to be progress itself’. Admittedly, it’s hard to see what other conclusion anyone could reach. There are calls today from the far left and far right of the political spectrum to dismantle the modern economy and modern society and revert to some pre-modern ideal. But this ideal is, in all cases, as mythical as it is real.

Strathern chooses to tell his overall story as a collection of colourful little biographies. This is an accessible approach and makes the book engaging for a general audience. Anyone who reads Dark Brilliance will reach the end with a much better understanding of not just the Enlightenment but life in seventeenth-century Europe in general. As someone who has read and written much about the subject, Strathern’s account of the development of Baroque painting was still entirely new to me.

I was left feeling that some of the threads remained loose, particularly on the impact of the Enlightenment and the paradox of reason coexisting with unreason. But as a panorama of seventeenth-century Europe, Dark Brilliance is both an impressive and very readable book.

Related reading

The Enlightenment and the making of modernity, by Piers Benn

Do we need God to defend civilisation? by Adam Wakeling

What has Christianity to do with Western values? by Nick Cohen

How three media revolutions transformed the history of atheism, by Nathan Alexander

The need for a new Enlightenment, by Christopher Hitchens

The post The Enlightenment paradox: review of ‘Dark Brilliance’ by Paul Strathern appeared first on The Freethinker.

As editor of the Freethinker, I would like to invite you along to Conway Hall’s Freethought History Festival, which is being held from Friday 30th August to Sunday 1st September.

On Saturday 31st August, I will be on a panel discussing the Freethinker alongside my predecessor as editor Emma Park and Professor David Nash. Other speakers will include Freethinker contributors Bob Forder, Eoin Carter, Maddy Goodall, Frances Lynch, Clare Stainthorp, and our resident radical cartoonist Paul Fitzgerald. Graham Smith, head of the campaigning group Republic, will launch the festival on 30 August, while 1 September is a free family fun day. Bob Forder will also be conducting his Books, Bones, and Blasphemy walking tour on the Sunday.

The festival is sponsored by the Freethinker, and it would be lovely to meet some of you there. You can find out more and get tickets here. Use the code FREETHINK!25 for a 25% discount.

Related reading

‘I do not think you are going to get a secular state without getting rid of the monarchy’: interview with Graham Smith, by Daniel James Sharp

Bring on the British republic – Graham Smith’s ‘Abolish the Monarchy’, reviewed, by Daniel James Sharp

Daniel James Sharp’s Freethinker articles

Emma Park’s Freethinker articles

Charles Bradlaugh and George Jacob Holyoake: their contrasting reputations as Secularists and Radicals, by Edward Royle

Is all publicity good publicity? How the first editor of the Freethinker attracted the public’s attention, by Clare Stainthorp

Britain’s blasphemy heritage, by David Nash

The rhythm of Tom Paine’s bones, by Eoin Carter

Morality without religion: the story of humanism, by Madeleine Goodall

Freethinker cartoons and articles by Paul Fitzgerald

Megan Manson’s Freethinker articles

Celebrating Eliza Flower: an unconventional woman, by Frances Lynch

The post Invitation to the Freethought History Festival at Conway Hall, 31 August – 1 September appeared first on The Freethinker.