When the writer, polemicists and atheist scourge of polite society, Christopher Hitchens, died last December, it provided an opportunity, as part of the usual obituaries, tributes and anecdotes, to replay a debate, held the previous year, in which Hitchens argued whether or not religion was a force for good in the world, with Tony Blair. 

The former prime minister, a convert to Catholicism since leaving office, and founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which supports and promotes interfaith dialogue, understandably, took the opposite side of the argument than Hitchens, maintaining that values of compassion, fairness and justice, deeply rooted in a religious conscience, compelled many a person to good works. Hitchens countered by pointing to the terrorists and madmen who similarly feel compelled by their faith to commit mass atrocities. 

It was an interesting debate from two committed men. Unlike Blair, Hitchens would like to see religion done away with; but would this stop criminality, would terrorism cease? Similarly, would charity dry up if faith was no longer a factor in people’s lives? Even a cursory nod to human psychology would suggest not. Goodness, as well, sadly, as evil, would continue to reside in society. In this sense, Hitchens would appear to be justified, that religion is extraneous, but there is a flaw in this argument; it concentrates only on whether religion produces good or bad people, who commit good or bad acts, it does not seek to understand the value of religion to everyday lives. This, however, often produces further complications.

Aryeh Ralbag, the US-based chief rabbi of Amsterdam, has been suspended this week for suggesting that homosexuality is a ‘disease’ that ‘sufferers’ need to be ‘cured’ of. Echoing many conservative Christian views, he wrote in the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality, that “authority fugues” (church and political leaders, presumably) should “guide same-sex strugglers (sic) towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.” He has defended his views, saying that his suspension, announced by the chairman of Amsterdam’s Orthodox community, Ronnie Eisenmann, is an affront, and Eisemnann himself was quick to defend tolerance in the Jewish community. But Ralbag was adamant he was speaking according to teaching. When is it an offence, he asked, to simply reseat what in in the Torah? The Conference of European Rabbis are with him on this, and have defended his position. An internecine war is brewing.

This is, of course, not the first time a conservative religious figure has proclaimed a morally disapproving stance on a matter of sexuality, and, no doubt, it will not be the last. Despite its traditional aversion to the bedroom and attendant matters, religion has always liked to poke its nose into matters of sexual and family morality, from contraception and child rearing to same-sex couples and abortion. They do so in the name of moral upkeep, but being irreligious does not mean being immoral, in the same way that a person of faith with a more progressive attitude to these matters is not necessarily a heretic. 

Faith should exist in tandem with tolerance, and  the days of intrusive pronouncements into private matters  a thing of the past. Interestingly, this whole incident kicked-off in response to an Orthodox rabbi agreeing to officiate over a same-sex marriage in the US; where now will these two men of faith turn to now that they have seemingly been excluded from an institution they have obviously tried hard to remain within?

CDonnelly@NEurope.eu