There is little doubt that the fundamentalist faction in the Anglican church has been growing over here in recent years, and its voice has indeed been much in evidence over the controversy of the appointment of homosexual bishops, with live-in partners or otherwise. But I have the impression that its total support has stabilised now. We sometimes hear evangelical services on BBC radio, sometimes from fundamentalist-type Anglican churches, and they are usually very jolly in which the congregations are thoroughly enjoying themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that, of course. We badly need more social opportunities like these in our modern too-privatised society, often so very lonely for many people, especially the old. But the intellectual standard is none too high on the part of those who lead those sorts of congregations and memberships of these sorts of churches seem to decline as quickly as they rise.
Generally, I don't think we need to worry overmuch about fundamentalism having an undue influence on our affairs even though at the present time president Bush aligns himself with this wing. But that is possibly for electoral reasons. We won't know his real beliefs and motivations, or even his real intellectual abilities, for some time until enough biographies are written. (Our prime minister of 50 years ago, Harold Macmillan, put himself over very successfully to the public as a jolly sort of buffoon. He was, in fact, very clever indeed and a superb actor in public.) But whether Bush is or isn't a fundamentalist, or whether he is intellectually handicapped -- as is believed by many of the chattering classes -- or not, all developed countries are gradually moving into a culture in which intelligence is not only needed but is increasingly selected for. This is what frightened Michael Young when he wrote his famous book The Rise of the Meritocracy. But I don't see how it can be avoided in an increasing technological society with a basic dependence on science. The more egalitarian and opportunistic we make our educational system, the more selective and intellectually stratified it is likely to be.
It is very interesting and probably of the greatest longer-term significance that when Den Xiaoping sharpened the succession procedures for the final selection of the ruling Poliburo 20 years ago, he was reinstating the old Chinese mandarin system -- that is, that China should be governed by individuals of proven scholarship and administrative ability. In traditional China, mandarins were initially selected on the basis of passing formidably difficult examinations based on the classic literature. Today, the emphasis is on science. The last Politburo member who was an 'ordinary worker' -- a carpenter -- retired last year and, as it happens, all the present Poliburo started their political-administrative careers as scientists -- and, I think, they are all 'hard' scientists, too, such as geologists, physicists, biologists and so forth, but I am not sure.
I believe that what will prove to be a major contributory factor in the economic downfall of western Europe is that scientists hardly feature at all in the political parties and civil services of most of the member nations. In England there are no morfe than a dozen scintifically trained MPs in the 625 member House of Commons and there are no scientists among the 15 or so Permanent Secretaries who head the main government departments. David Kelly, one of the world's leading authorities of toxic chemicals in the world, was described by one of the mandarins as a "middle-ranking civil servant". (Those who knew him well have said that this comment was one of the main contributory factors in his suicide.) There is still considerable prejudice -- even animus -- against scientists being involved at the highest levels of administration even though modern society depends on science and technology. In the case of America, it is difficult to say what the outcome may be in the coming years. In the course of the last century, and particularly in the last few decades, America has been able to attract many of the greatest scientists in the world and they ought to be able to work their way through into administration and politics in due course. In the meantime, however, the cultural future of America is an open question. However, despite the appearance of a vigorous strain of fundamentalism in America, Gerard Baker for one thinks that it is not serious, and in fact is declining in its political effects. In the following article he gives his reasons for believing this.
Keith Hudson
<<<< THE MYTH OF US FUNDAMENTALISM
Gerard Baker
For years Massachusetts has enjoyed a special place in the psychology of conservative Americans. Its predilection for far-left liberal causes has earned it some famous soubriquets: Taxachusetts, the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, the Wacko Commonwealth. Even as it has elected Republican governors in the past decade, there is no state in the US better equipped to help conservatives define what they are against. On Tuesday the state gave its tormentors one of their biggest gifts yet.
The state's highest court ruled that its legislature had erred in passing a law that forbade same-sex marriages. (Think about that for a moment: there are important people in Massachusetts who find the state's lawmakers insufficiently liberal.) Four of the seven justices said the state constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
According to the judges, banning gay people from marrying did just that. Their ruling will have profound implications and will fuel the campaign to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman.
But the ruling was interesting for another reason. It served as the most useful corrective yet to the notion, commonplace in the finer salons of American and European society, that the US is two-thirds of the way to becoming a fully fledged theocracy.
It is hard to find a serious observer these days who does not believe that the US is in the grip of a Christian fundamentalist revolution, which is pushing the country steadily towards a state of fervid intolerant piety, infusing politics with its zealous brand of censorious biblical theology.
But the problem with this is that it is almost impossible to find a single aspect of US life in which Christian conservatives have succeeded in shifting the country in their direction since emerging as a serious political movement 30 years ago. All the indications are that, while Americans themselves remain deeply religious, their institutions and laws continue to be distinguished by an enduring hostility to anything that hints at religiosity.
The Massachusetts approval of gay marriage is just one in a series of legal rulings and legislative decisions recently that have reaffirmed a secular liberalism across the US. Three other states -- Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii -- have passed laws that in effect describe an insistence on inter-sex marital unions as inherently discriminatory.
Last month a court in California ruled that the recitation of the pledge of allegiance each day in the state's schools was unconstitutional because it refers to God, breaching the separation of church and state. School prayer is probably the single most important issue for Christian conservatives and yet not only have they failed to advance the cause; they have even been on the defensive against efforts to expunge even the most minimal and non-denominational at religious references from the nation's education system.
We have known for years that liberal states such as Massachusetts, Vermont and California are not your typical US states. But consider some other recent events. Last week a court in Alabama, of all places, threw the state's supreme court justice out of office because he refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.
This year the US Supreme Court -- that conservative-run cabal that handed the presidency to the Texan fundamentalist George W. Bush -- has declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional and upheld affirmative action in university admissions.
What about abortion? It is true that opponents secured perhaps their biggest victory earlier this month when Mr Bush signed into law a bill to ban partial birth abortion, the first real federal restriction on abortion since the landmark Roe vs Wade case in 1973.
But opposition to partial birth abortion goes way beyond the religious right. The bill was passed with close to a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, including a dozen Democratic senators, and is supported, opinion polls suggest, by a similar proportion of Americans.
Even then, the Act was immediately ruled unconstitutional by a New York court and now sits in legal limbo pending further judicial decisions. So on the signature issues for Christian conservatives -- the sanctity of marriage, abortion, school prayer -- the
history of the past 30 years has been a series of steady defeats, not creeping gains. The much-feared religious conservatives may have been effective in getting CBS to drop an unflattering portrayal of ex-president Ronald Reagan but, when it comes to changing the law, they are no match for their opponents.
Some of these questions, especially gay marriage and partial birth abortion, may play a big role in next year's presidential and congressional elections -- surely, incidentally, a more appropriate place for their resolution than the chambers of state judges. And
we may discover then that Christian conservatives have succeeded in shifting the nation's political tilt.
But I doubt it. Even if next year's politics set back the cause of gay marriage or late-term abortions, it will not be because the Bible-bashers are in control but because a majority of Americans, those who go to churches, mosques and synagogues, and those who prefer to stay at home and watch football, want it that way.
Financial Times -- 20 November 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
