Robert Ashton takes issue with the view that only faith groups have come forward to try to fill the void left by public spending cuts.
It was a letter to The Times that started me thinking. The Rev John Ray, a retired Church of England minister from Birmingham, was commenting on the issue of prayers before council meetings. He wrote that he’s not “a great fan of statutory prayer”, and I agree. Religious observance, however casual, should not be thrust upon those with no faith.
Moreover, prayer and public life are surely incompatible? I have this vision in my mind of soldiers on both sides of no-man’s land in the Somme praying for success as they waited for the whistle to blow and go over the top. German and British alike held the same bible as they sought heavenly protection from the bullets and wished death upon the fellows coming at them from the other side. It just doesn’t seem very Christian to claim godly approval of acts of war. Nor come to that should council funding cuts be made by a process of decision-making prefaced by prayer. If I was Christian, I’d certainly not want to involve my god in the day-to-day decisions of public life.
But what really caught my eye was this comment in John Ray’s letter: “I have not noticed atheist or humanist societies rushing to fill the void left by reduced council provision.”
He has a point, not because atheists and humanists don’t care. But because they haven’t congregated and collaborated to start great humanitarian charities in the same way that faith groups have always done. The Salvation Army (pictured) comes to mind as a great example of how Christian collective caring can create fantastic organisations that do so much good. What’s more you don’t have to be Christian to benefit from the Salvation Army’s support. You just have to need support.
Of course if you took the bible literally, you’d wonder why loaves and fishes are not alleviating third-world hunger. But only the radical of any faith adhere zealously to every word printed in their much-translated religious texts. As with so much human interaction, it’s the thought that counts.
But back to the point; can it honestly be said that people of no faith do not care for others? I don’t think of Bill and Melinda Gates as being motivated by Christian belief to fund Aids and malaria work in Africa. More by the simple fact that they can afford to and it makes them feel good to give.
For me the point is this: faith groups are, by definition, groups - people who get together because they share a belief. Non-believers don’t get together because they don’t believe. That would be pointless, even though Alain de Botton (writing Religion for Atheists) thinks it would be a good idea.
I reflected on my own philanthropic behaviour. I’m building a named fund, albeit fairly slowly, within my local community foundation. It’s one of 56 similar foundations around the UK. They’re not faith-based or motivated, yet last year between them gave grants totalling £62m. They support emerging and struggling grassroots community groups.
What drives me to give is not belief in any god, but the innate faith in humanity with which I believe we are all born. So perhaps John Ray is wrong. There are non-faith charities rushing to fill the void. They’re called community foundations. Thank god for that!
